HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/11/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
NOVEMBER 15, 2010
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Fire Stations Project Update
7:25 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes October 18, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing
District.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution requesting the City Council to
call for a public hearing relative to the proposed Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing
District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (an Economic Development District).
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes October 11, 2010
3b. Special Study Session Minutes November 1, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Meeting of November 15, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing for Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Liquor Barrel.
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve off-sale
intoxicating liquor license to MM Liquor Barrel Inc. dba Liquor Barrel located at 5111
Excelsior Blvd in St. Louis Park for the license term through March 1, 2011.
6b. Public Hearing - 2011 Liquor License Fees.
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve Resolution
adopting 2011 liquor license fees for the license term March 1, 2011 through March 1,
2012 pursuant to M.S.A. Ch. 340A and section 3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat.
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution granting approval of the
Preliminary Plat of Eldridge 1st Addition, with conditions.
8b. Presale Review of General Obligation Bonds for Louisiana Court – Series 2010C and
the Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt a Resolution Providing for the Sale of:
• $1,755,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010C and
•$13,140,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds (Build America Bonds), Series 2010D
9. Communication
Immediately Following City Council Meeting
CONTINUED SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
2. Utility Rates – 2011
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of November 15, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve premises amendment to the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sales liquor license
for Rojo West End LLC dba Rojo Mexican Grill located at 1602 West End Boulevard.
4b. Adopt Resolution calling for a public hearing by the City Council on December 20, 2010
relative to the proposed Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (an Economic Development District).
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line
at 9375 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - P.I.D. 07-117-21-32-0007.
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line
at 3245 Sumter Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 17-117-21-23-0032.
4e. Adopt Resolution rescinding prior parking restrictions and authorizing parking restrictions
at 6300 Walker Street.
4f. Adopt Resolution rescinding prior parking restrictions and authorizing parking restrictions
at 4801 41st Street West.
4g. Approve Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 99-09, 36th Street Streetscape Project –
Project 2008-2600.
4h. Appoint Mayor Jeff Jacobs to serve as the St. Louis Park representative on the Southwest
Corridor Management Committee.
4i. Approve Purchase of vacant MnDOT land and approve the purchase agreement for re-
conveyance of said vacant MnDOT land to Namakan Properties, LLC.
4j. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV
cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed
live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays
on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17.
The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fire Stations Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is required. Staff would like to discuss with the City Council several policy
questions related to the fire station design, and update City Council on the fire stations site and
building planning, project schedule and cost estimates.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
There are several policy issues related to the fire station plans that need direction from City
Council. The specific policy questions include:
• Should the City proceed with using geothermal heat exchange at Station No. 1 and/or Station
No. 2 based on preliminary estimates on well field size, cost, and pay back analysis?
• Should the City pursue LEED certification for Fire Station No. 1 and/or Fire Station No. 2?
• Should the City proceed into the Construction Documents phase?
BACKGROUND:
Staff and consultants presented a complete update at the end of the Schematic Design Phase to
City Council at a study session on August 9, 2010. At that meeting the City Council provided
clear direction and support regarding the initial plans and scope of work. Subsequently, the City
Council provided staff direction to include City records storage on the second floor of Fire
Station No. 1.
At this time, the Fire Stations Project design is at the end of the second phase (Design
Development Phase). In the Design Development Phase, the grading, drainage, utility and
landscaping plans have been taking shape. The floor plan has been reviewed in greater detail.
Also, the mechanical engineers have begun to size and design the heating, cooling, ventilation
and lighting systems. Well drilling, soil conductivity testing and energy modeling have been
done to evaluate whether geothermal heat exchange is appropriate for these sites and buildings.
Staff is seeking City Council direction regarding three issues as the project enters into the
Construction Drawing Phase and formal applications are submitted for City subdivision and
zoning approvals, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits. Staff needs direction
regarding pursuing the use of geothermal, pursuing LEED certification, and proceeding with the
next design phase and City and Watershed District approvals/permitting.
Public Input Update
A third community meeting was held for the fire stations project on September 16, 2010. The
attendance at this meeting, similar to two previous community meetings, was relatively low.
Those attending the neighborhood meetings have been primarily residents that live near the
stations. Overall, those in attendance have supported keeping the fire stations in the existing
locations.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
For Fire Station No. 1, staff met with a few of the adjacent neighbors on October 27, 2010 to
discuss issues related to parking lot screening, lighting, building appearance, and landscaping as
a means to follow up on questions that were raised at the third neighborhood meeting. Staff is
also providing an update to the Elmwood Neighborhood at its annual meeting on November 11.
Staff will be working with at least one neighbor across the street from Station No. 2 regarding
concerns about headlights shining into the house across the street from the north truck exit. Staff
will also continue to pursue realigning the common property line between the Walgreens
property and Station #2/Northside Park.
The site and building exterior design continue to be refined to address neighbors’ concerns.
Updated Cost Estimate
The construction manager, Kraus-Anderson, has prepared the next iteration of project cost
estimates. At the direction of City Council, a second construction cost estimate was prepared by
another independent firm, Faithful & Gould. Both construction cost estimates confirm that the
fire station designs are on budget. There was less than 10% difference in the two estimates. This
should provide City Council with confidence that at this stage the design is consistent with the
proposed budget. (Action regarding issuing bonds for the Fire Stations Project is on the regular
meeting agenda for November 15, 2010.)
Design Development Phase Cost Estimates:
Kraus-Anderson Faithful & Gould % Difference
Station No. 1 $7,229,521 $6,765,091 -6.4%
Station No. 2 $4,404,456 $3,881,553 -11.9%
Construction Costs Subtotal $11,633,977 $10,646,644 -8.5%
All Other Project Costs +$3,832,943
TOTAL $15,466,920
Schedule
A basic project timeline is attached for your information. As City Council is aware, the two
stations are being designed at the same time and the City plans to bid the two fire stations
together. Staff is recommending that the City also build the stations concurrently.
Based on the present designs, Kraus-Anderson is confident that the new Station No. 2 could be
built while the existing Station No. 2 remains in operation. This means that the City could build
Fire Station No. 1 and No. 2 concurrently. This approach may improve the construction bids the
City receives and it would significantly reduce the duration of the disruption to Fire Department
operations. The attached timeline graphic reflects this change.
TOPICS TO DISCUSS:
The architect and construction manager will begin the study session with a 25-minute
presentation to the City Council to help explain the current designs, energy modeling analysis,
LEED certification prospects, cost estimates and schedule that are attached for your review. The
remaining time will be devoted to City Council questions and discussion on the main policy
issues: geothermal, LEED certification, and design approval process.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Geothermal
On August 9, 2010, the City Council directed staff to investigate the use of a Ground Source
Heat Exchange system (“geothermal”) for heating/cooling the two fire stations. Test wells were
drilled at both sites and soil conductivity tests were conducted. The testing showed that the soil
conductivity was good. However, the well company encountered challenging geologic
conditions for drilling, including somewhat shallow depths to bedrock (70 to 100 feet) and
fractured Platteville Limestone. Due to these conditions, the consultants anticipate drilling costs
would exceed previous estimates.
The project mechanical engineer, Bonestroo, did energy modeling for Fire Station No. 1 and an
economic comparison of three different scenarios (see attached):
• Alternative 1 assumed using geothermal to help heat and cool the administration portions of
the building, and overhead radiant heat for the apparatus bays.
• Alternative 2 assumed using natural gas for a high efficiency boiler and chiller system for the
administration portion of the buildings, and overhead radiant heat for the apparatus bays.
• Alternative 3 assumed using geothermal for the whole buildings.
The analysis essentially shows that the geothermal systems (Alternatives 1 and 3) would be more
costly to install, slightly more costly to maintain, and be similar or less energy efficient than
Alternative 2. This was not what we expected to learn. When the geothermal system was being
explored, it was expected that it would be more energy efficient and would pay for the added
initial costs over a period of time. Instead, the analysis shows that there would never be a
payback for the more expensive installation costs.
Based on the energy modeling done for Station #1, Bonestroo expects the same result for Fire
Station No. 2. It is staff’s recommendation that the City change course and use a high-efficiency
boiler system, instead of geothermal, at both stations.
The construction cost estimates done by Kraus-Anderson and Bonestroo were based on a
geothermal system. The costs will be significantly less for a high efficiency boiler system, but
that system has not been designed and detailed cost estimates are not yet available. The
consultants may be able to provide a better cost estimate comparison of the upfront costs
(geothermal vs. high-efficiency boiler system) in the verbal presentation to City Council.
LEED Certification
The fire stations will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s Green Building
Policy. The Fire Stations Working Group determined that the U.S. Green Building Council’s
(USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System
(LEED) would be the most appropriate program for the fire stations. DLR Group KKE did a
preliminary assessment of the credits likely to be achieved based on the current design. The
architects’ assessment is that the fire stations definitely appear to qualify for LEED Certification,
and may even be eligible for LEED Silver certification.
The City of St. Louis Park’s Green Building Policy requires that a building owner obtain a
written cost estimate for achieving “green” certification by at least one third party sustainable
building program so as to enable building owners to more fully determine the cost/benefit of
such certification. DLR Group KKE provided a written cost estimate of $68,700 to pursue
LEED certification for both stations. The cost estimate (see attached) includes LEED strategy
selection and verification; acting as LEED liaison to USGBC; assisting in negotiation of point
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
ruling; technical support and research; LEED certification planning, registration and
documentation; coordination with the project team and contractor; and additional energy
modeling.
Design Approval Process
If the City Council is still comfortable with the design direction, the project will proceed into the
Construction Documents Phase. Also, formal applications for City subdivision and zoning
approvals, as well as Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permits, will be submitted.
In the Construction Documents Phase, the architect will develop detailed drawings and materials
specifications that the construction manager and building contractor will use both to estimate
construction costs and to build the project. This phase takes three months (Construction
drawings are due to Kraus-Anderson for cost estimates at the end of January 2011).
The City approvals will include:
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for importing/exporting fill in excess of 400 cubic yards (both
stations)
• Preliminary and Final Plats to combine parcels (both stations)
• Subdivision variance to reduce the width of a drainage and utility easement (Station #1 only)
• Vacation of a portion of Oxford Street right-of-way (Fire Station #1 only)
Consultants will submit applications for the CUP and MCWD permits for both stations
immediately.
For Fire Station No. 1 specifically, the following additional City subdivision and zoning
applications also will be submitted immediately. The vacation application would convert excess
road right-of-way along the south side of Oxford Street to City property that would be used for
parking for the fire station site. The plat application to combine the parcels will include a
variance to provide a drainage and utility easement of less than 10 feet at one point on the
property.
For Fire Station No. 2 specifically, staff anticipates submitting a preliminary and final plat
application to combine the existing fire station site with Northside Park property. Staff is still
working with the owner of the Walgreens property to pursue a possible land exchange, which
would straighten out the common property line. Staff anticipates this will take more time, and
will likely delay submitting the plat application for Station #2. This will not delay the overall
project schedule.
NEXT STEPS:
• Begin construction documents preparation (immediately).
• Submit City subdivision and zoning applications (immediately).
• Hold the first public hearings in December 2010.
• Begin site preparation work
o The Fire Stations Working Group will review bids to remove the structures from the three
residential properties south of Fire Station No. 1. The selected contractor will abate the
hazardous materials from the buildings (asbestos, lead paint, etc.) in November and clear
the houses in December.
o Xcel Energy will relocate existing electric utilities at Station No. 1 and Station No. 2 sites
over the winter.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
• The three houses south of Fire Station No.1 may be used for Public Safety training after the
selected demolition contractor removes any asbestos or lead paint in the houses. These
houses are very representative of most of the houses in St. Louis Park and provide a unique
training opportunity. Neighboring residents will be contacted prior to any training activity.
• The City is participating in Xcel Energy’s Energy Design Assistance Program. The program
will help the City review energy conservation opportunities associated with the St. Louis
Park Fire Stations Project. A final report from that effort should be completed in mid-
December.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project cost estimates of the fire station designs is within the $15.5 million budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Engaging the community in the design process, minimizing negative impacts of the stations on
surrounding residents, designing energy efficient buildings that meet or exceed the City’s green
building policy, and building an aesthetically pleasing building relate to all four Vision St. Louis
Park Strategic directions.
Attachments:
• Project Timeline Graphic
• Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Exterior Building Images
• Kraus Anderson Project Cost Estimates
• Faithful & Gould Construction Cost Estimates
• Economic Comparison (Energy Modeling) for Station No. 1
• Proposal for Services - LEED Certification
o Scope of Services
o Compensation
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 6
KK:I"STATION 1 -SITE PLAN CITY OF ST.LOUIS PARK
architects TWO NEW FIRE STATIONS
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 7
N
LEGEND
1.PUBLIC
2.LIVING QUARTERS
3.STATION
ADMINISTRATION
4.DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATION
5.TRAINING
6.APPARATUS BAY
7.MECHANICAL
80
FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
KK:I'"STATION #1 -SCHEMATIC PLANS CITY OF ST.LOUIS PARK
architects TWO NEW FIRE STATIONS
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 8
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 9
cornice similar windows with
expressed window heads
~
brick exterior
with soldier
course detail
KK;J"DESIGN CONCEPTS CITY OF ST.LOUIS PARK
architects TWO NEW FIRE STATIONS
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 10
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 11
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 12
I
PEAVUSI.E PA ING
PRoPOSEO l,.ANl)SCAPt
PLANTING
LEGEND
~
<{
Z
Z
<{
(j)
5o
...J
LITTLE L
FIlLD #)
(
I
I
I--r
UtTINe GrtOUl'"
P,AN [.5 I DESIGN ..5
BATTING ~AGE
IBATTI G gAGE
I
~q
o I
.._-----...--.t.-
I
L
E NGIN[I.5 I
~CON
K~;)'"Station 2 -Site Plan CITY OF ST.LOUIS PARK
archItects TWO NEW FIRE STATIONS
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 13
-
~I I
r
l
6 r-8?Y 7
t-J--
n
LEGEND
1.PUBLIC
2.LIVING QUARTERS
3.STATION
ADMINISTRATION
4.DEPARTMENT FIRST FLOOR MECHANICAL
ADMINISTRATION MEZZANINE
5.TRAINING
6.APPARATUS BAY
7.MECHANICAL
N 40 80
i
KK:I'"STATION #2 -SCHEMATIC PLANS CITY OF ST.LOUIS PARK
architects TWO NEW FIRE STATIONS
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 14
I _~
I ----.--
1-_•---
II
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 15
Date: 2/8/2010
Revision #:6
Revision Date: 11/9/2010
Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011
Project:Fire Stations #1 & #2 Completion: TBD
Location:St. Louis Park Tax Percent: TBD
Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD
Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks
Project Funds Available $0 $0 $15,516,197
Interest Earnings $0
Total Available Dollars $0 $0 $15,516,197
Construction Costs Budget
Building & Site Construction $7,229,521 $4,404,456 $11,633,977
Project General Conditions $0 $0 $0 In Estimate
CM Site Services $0 $0 $502,335 Kraus-Anderson
CM Fee $0 $0 $157,500 Kraus-Anderson
Construction Contingency $289,181 $176,178 $465,359 Assumed 4% of Construction
Xcel Energy Charges $7,000 $7,000 $14,000 Based on Prelim Meetings with Xcel
-$0 $0 $0
Total Construction Budget $7,525,702 $4,587,634 $12,773,171
Soft Cost Budget
A/E Fees $0 $0 $498,750 DLR/KKE
A&E Project Reimbursable or Constr. Admin.$0 $0 $24,000 DLR/KKE
Overall Project Budget - Design Development Estimate
A&E Project Reimbursable or Constr. Admin.$0 $0 $24,000 DLR/KKE
A/E Additional Services $0 $0 $68,276 DLR/KKE/Faithful Gould
Civil, Structural, M&E Design Fees $0 $0 incl.
FFE Programming $0 $0 $0
Building Permit Fee $100,000 $50,000 $150,000 Allowance
Zoning Application Fee $2,800 $2,800 $5,600 Preliminary Info from City
SAC & WAC Costs $0 $0 $20,000 Allowance
Construction Testing / Special Inspections Testing $30,000 $20,000 $50,000 Estimated
Site Survey $6,570 $7,957 $14,527 Sunde#1/Loucks #2
Initial Park Soil Borings $0 $8,465 $8,465 Braun(by City)
Geotechnical Exploration / Soil Borings $0 $0 $9,600 Braun
Plan Productions / Distribution - Bidding $7,500 $7,500 $15,000 Allowance
Total Soft Cost Budget $146,870 $96,722 $864,218
Owner Costs Budget $0
Land Acquisition/Utility/Taxes Costs $844,350 $0 $844,350
Owner Moving/Relocation Costs $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 Estimated
Public Infrastructure $0 $0 $0
Capitalized Interest on Land $0 $0 $0
Capitalized Interest on Building $0 $0 $0
Loan Expenses or Bonding Costs $0 $0 $0 Per City Info
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment $350,000 $200,000 $550,000 Allowance
Technology / Equipment $75,000 $60,000 $135,000 Estimated
Art Requirement $0 $0 $0
Special Consultants $14,200 $8,000 $22,200 SRF
Legal Fees / Bid Notices $5,050 $5,000 $10,050 Actual #1/Allowance #2
Project Commissioning / Validation $25,000 $15,000 $40,000
Phase 1 & 2 and Hazmat Environmental Study $0 $0 $40,934 Braun
Environmental Abatement Costs $30,000 $20,000 $50,000 Allowance
SLP DD estimate 11810.xls - Owner-Project Budget Costs Page 1 of 2 Print Date: 11/10/2010
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 16
Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks
Geothermal Drilling / Report $14,062 $14,063 $28,125 Braun Reports
Storm Water Charges, Requirements $0 $0 $0
City Approval Fees & Park Ded.$0 $0 $0
City Administration Costs $1,283 $0 $1,283
Travel / Site Visits $0 $11 $11
Misc. Owner Expenses $71 $6,500 $6,571
Misc. Owner Expenses - Storage Costs $16,800 $16,800 $33,600 Belt Line Properties
Platting Costs $3,250 $3,250 $6,500
Builders Risk Insurance $0 $0 $10,907 Preliminary Quote
Total Owner Costs Budget $1,404,066 $373,624 $1,829,531
Total Project Costs $9,076,638 $5,057,980 $15,466,920 Constr. Cost + Soft Costs + Owner Costs
Project Balance Available $49,277
Value Engineering & Recommend savings $0 $0 $0
Adjusted Project Balance $0 $0 $49,277
Project Cost Revisions
Executed Change Orders to Date $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Pending Changes $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Contingency Remaining $465,359.10
SLP DD estimate 11810.xls - Owner-Project Budget Costs Page 2 of 2 Print Date: 11/10/2010
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 17
Date: 11/9/2010
Revision #
Fire Station #1 Revision Date:
DD Estimate
Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011
Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD
Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD
Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD
$202.49 / SF Building
Area:30,830 SF $234.25 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims
Brian Hook
Item Unit Cost/
Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost
SUMMARY:
BUILDING STRUCTURE $43.95 $1,362,446
EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE - SHELL $43.58 $1,343,575
INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $26.95 $830,820
EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $2.85 $87,900
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0
CONVEYING SYSTEMS $2.11 $65,000
MECHANICAL $46.97 $1,448,155
ELECTRICAL $21.18 $653,000
GENERAL CONDITIONS $9.18 $283,025
PERMITS, INSURANCE & TESTING $0.00 $0
CONTINGENCY $5.72 $176,330
ESCALATION****$0.00 $0
BUILDING SUBTOTAL $202.49 $6,250,251
SITE PREPARATORY WORK $3.45 $106,450
SITEWORK $28.31 $872,820
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $234.25 $7,229,521
****0% Escalation Based on January 2011 Bid Date
SLP DD estimate 11810 - Tab 1-Fire Station #1 Page 1 of 4 Print Date: 11/10/2010
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 18
Date: 11/9/2010
Revision #
Fire Station #2 Revision Date:
DD Estimate
Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011
Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD
Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD
Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD
$227.41 / SF Building
Area:15,915 SF $276.43 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims
Brian Hook
Item Unit Cost/
Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost
SUMMARY:
BUILDING STRUCTURE $52.05 $833,353
EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE - SHELL $42.53 $676,840
INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $29.22 $465,070
EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $3.33 $53,000
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0
CONVEYING SYSTEMS $0.00 $0
MECHANICAL $54.64 $869,565
ELECTRICAL $25.13 $400,000
GENERAL CONDITIONS $13.76 $218,980
PERMITS, INSURANCE & TESTING $0.00 $0
CONTINGENCY $6.75 $107,426
ESCALATION****$0.00 $0
BUILDING SUBTOTAL $227.41 $3,624,234
SITE PREPARATORY WORK $2.83 $44,960
SITEWORK $46.20 $735,262
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $276.43 $4,404,456
****0% Escalation Based on January 2011 Bid Date
SLP DD estimate 11810 - Tab 1-Fire Station #2 Page 1 of 4 Print Date: 11/10/2010
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 19
St Louis Park Fire Stations
Design Development Estimate
St Louis Park, MN
DLR Group KKE
520 Nicollet Mall, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Design Development Cost Estimate: Rev B
Provided By:
Faithful+Gould
900 2nd Ave South, Suite 500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone 612.338.3120
FGOULD.COM
November 8, 2010
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 20
8-Nov-10
St Louis Park Fire Stations
Design Development Estimate
St Louis Park, MN
Design Development Cost Estimate: Rev B
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
This estimate includes the two new proposed Fire Stations located in St Louis Park, MN. They are the new 31,015sf Fire Station #1 located at 3750
Wooddale Avenue, and the new 15,954 sf Fire Station #2 located at 2262 Louisiana Ave S.
This document is based on the measurement and pricing of quantities wherever information is provided and/or reasonable assumptions for other
work not covered in the drawings and programs as stated in this document.
Basis of Pricing
Pricing shown reflects probable construction costs obtainable in the St Louis Park, MN, area on the date of this statement of probable costs. This
estimate is a determination of fair market value for the construction of this project. We understand that the Owner has chosen to employ a CM to
manage the project. Pricing within the estimate assumes competitive bidding for every portion of the construction work for all subcontractors, that is
to mean 4 to 5 bids. If fewer bids are received, bid results can be expected to be higher.
Subcontractor’s markups have been included in each line item unit price. These markups cover the cost of field overhead, home office overhead,
and profit. These markups can range from 5% to 15% of the cost for that particular item of work. The rates that have been established are for
budgetary purposes only and are not to be used to establish the cost of additions or deletions to the scope of work that may arise during the actual
construction process.
Construction Manager's General Conditions, CM Fee, Overhead and Profit , are calculated at 11%
Documentations
Faithful+Gould received the following documents for the this cost estimate:
Design Development Drawings dated October 18, 2010
Architectural Project Manual (2 volumes) dated October 18, 2010
Design Contingency
A 5% design/estimating contingency has been included in the estimate. This contingency should reduce to zero at bid stage, but the monies
identified are likely to be absorbed in the detail "above-the-line".
Escalation
Escalation has been excluded.
Items excluded from the Cost Estimate
Land acquisition fees
Legal and accounting fees
Design, engineering and consultant fees
Winter Conditions
Testing and inspection
Fire and all risk insurance
Owner's contingency
Hazardous material mitigation
Removal of unforeseen underground obstructions
Loose furniture, fittings and equipment (FF&E)
Moving costs
Vending Equipment
Audio Visual Equipment
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 21
8-Nov-10
St Louis Park Fire Stations
Design Development Estimate
St Louis Park, MN
Design Development Cost Estimate: Rev B
INTRODUCTION
Artwork
Any off site roadway or utility improvements
Items that may affect the cost estimate
Modifications to the scope of work included in this estimate.
Unforeseen sub-surface conditions.
Special phasing requirements.
Restrictive technical specifications or excessive contract conditions.
Any other non-competitive bid situations.
Bids delayed beyond the projected schedule.
Statements of Probable Cost
Faithful+Gould has no control over the cost of labor and materials, general contractor’s or any subcontractor’s method of determining prices, or
competitive bidding and market conditions. This opinion of probable cost of construction is made on the basis of the experience, qualifications, and
best judgment of the professional consultant familiar with the construction industry. Faithful+Gould cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,
bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from this or subsequent cost estimates.
Faithful+Gould has prepared this estimate in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices. This staff is available to discuss its Faithful+Gould has prepared this estimate in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices. This staff is available to discuss its
contents with interested personnel.
Recommendation for Cost Control
Faithful+Gould. recommends that the Owner carefully review this document, including line item descriptions, unit prices, clarifications, exclusions,
inclusions and assumptions, contingencies, escalation and markups. If the project is over budget, or if there are unresolved budgeting issues,
alternate systems schemes should be evaluated before proceeding into the design phase.
Requests for modifications of any apparent errors or omissions to this document must be made to Faithful+Gould within ten (10) days of receipt of
this estimate. Otherwise, it will be understood that the contents have been concurred with and accepted.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 22
Fire Station # 1 7,198,751 232.11 63.5
Fire Station # 2 4,130,372 258.89 36.5
Total 11,329,123 491.00 100.0
St. Louis Park Fire Stations
Design Development - Rev. B
Summary: PROJECT COMPONENTS
Description Amount
USD
Cost/sf
USD
%
20239-11-001,1 11-9-10
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 23
Fire Station # 1
A10 FOUNDATIONS 549,596.00 17.72 7.6
B10 SUPERSTRUCTURE 543,560.00 17.53 7.6
B20 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE 1,148,741.00 37.04 15.9
B30 ROOFING 302,519.00 9.75 4.2
C10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 630,570.00 20.33 8.8
C20 STAIRS 77,000.00 2.48 1.1
C30 INTERIOR FINISHES 437,746.00 14.11 6.1
D10 CONVEYING 110,000.00 3.55 1.5
D20 PLUMBING 266,672.00 8.60 3.7
D30 HVAC 644,909.00 20.79 8.9
D40 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 100,799.00 3.25 1.4
D50 ELECTRICAL 643,025.00 20.73 9.0
G10 SITE PREPARATION 90,534.00 2.92 1.2
G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 378,862.00 12.22 5.3
G30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 100,605.00 3.24 1.4
G40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 170,000.00 5.48 2.4
Sub Total 6,195,138.00 199.74 86.1
General Conditions (4%)247,806.00 7.99 3.4
Design/Pricing Contingency (5%)322,147.00 10.39 4.5
Building and Site Construction Sub Total 6,765,091.00 218.12 94.0
CM Site Services and Fee (7%)433,660.00 13.98 6.0
Total 7,198,751.00 232.10 100.0
St. Louis Park Fire Stations
Design Development - Rev. B
Summary - Fire Station # 1 Area: 31,015
Ref. Description Amount
USD
Cost/sf
USD
%
20239-11-001,2 11-9-10
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 24
Fire Station # 2
A10 FOUNDATIONS 336,580.00 21.10 8.1
B10 SUPERSTRUCTURE 137,718.00 8.63 3.4
B20 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE 584,695.00 36.65 14.1
B30 ROOFING 161,800.00 10.14 4.0
C10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 426,116.00 26.71 10.3
C20 STAIRS 15,000.00 0.94 0.3
C30 INTERIOR FINISHES 312,844.00 19.61 7.6
D20 PLUMBING 186,198.00 11.67 4.5
D30 HVAC 437,823.00 27.44 10.6
D40 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 51,850.00 3.25 1.3
D50 ELECTRICAL 376,815.00 23.62 9.1
G10 SITE PREPARATION 10,000.00 0.63 0.2
G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 327,696.00 20.54 8.0
G30 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES 59,201.00 3.71 1.4
G40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 130,200.00 8.16 3.2
Sub Total 3,554,536.00 222.80 86.1
General Conditions (4%)142,181.00 8.91 3.4
Design/Pricing Contingency (5%)184,836.00 11.59 4.5
Building and Site Construction Sub Total 3,881,553.00 243.30 94.0
CM Site Services and Fee (7%)248,818.00 15.60 6.0
Total 4,130,371.00 258.90 100.0
St. Louis Park Fire Stations
Design Development - Rev. B
Summary - Fire Station # 2 Area: 15,954
Ref. Description Amount
USD
Cost/sf
USD
%
20239-11-001,18 11-9-10
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 25
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 26
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 27
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 28
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 29
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 30
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 31
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 32
Minneapolis Des Moines Chicago Colorado Springs Denver Irvine Honolulu Lincoln Los Angeles Las Vegas Modesto
Omaha Orlando Overland Park Palm Springs Phoenix Portland Riverside Sacramento Seattle Tucson
520 Nicollet Mall
Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(o) 612/977-3500
(f) 612/977-3600
www.dlrgroup.com
November 7, 2010
Mr. Sean Walther
Senior Planner
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416
Subject: Proposal for Services – LEED-NC v3.0, 10-01-2010
Two New Fire Stations Projects
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
DLR Group KKE 40-10232-00
Dear Sean:
It is our pleasure to present to the City of St Louis Park this proposal for LEED planning and documentation
services for each of the St Louis Park Fire Station Projects. Based on our experience with similar successful
projects, we believe that our process and phased approach are in line with your vision. The recommended
approach will allow Council to be fully informed in the sustainable strategies, aware of the benefits and cost of
the suggested strategies to allow them to make the determination how to proceed at each phase in a way that
will be both demonstrative and fiscally responsible.
DLR Group KKE has built a name in the Market by listening, designing and delivering our services to support
the needs of our clients. Our experience delivering both the LEED planning and documentation seamlessly with
the implementation of our architectural services make us a solid choice.
As a forward thinking community, St Louis Park has recognized the clear potential with a LEED certified public
project. In addition to the beneficial marketing opportunities, LEED certified buildings are proven to offer many
other cost savings benefits, which include operational cost savings, increased staff retention, performance and
health and return on investment. This proposal will allow you to begin utilizing the recognition of leadership right
away.
Basic Scope of Services
LEED strategy selection and verification
Act as LEED liaison to USGBC
Assist in negotiation of point ruling
Technical support and Research
LEED Certification Planning, Registration and Documentation
Coordination with project team and contractor
Energy Modeling (if selected)
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 33
Mr. Sean Walther
November 3, 2010
DLR Group KKE 40-10232-00
Page 2
Minneapolis Des Moines Chicago Colorado Springs Denver Irvine Honolulu Lincoln Los Angeles Las Vegas Modesto
Omaha Orlando Overland Park Palm Springs Phoenix Portland Riverside Sacramento Seattle Tucson
LEED Planning
Facilitate an Eco Charette with Owner representation and project team to develop Preliminary LEED
Strategy Checklist
Presentation of initial strategy recommendations to Council and Owner ’s Representative
Revise checklist as required, including design analysis of strategy implications
Coordinate and communicate with project team on LEED issues and direction
Register the project with the USGBC
Presentations to Council with final strategy recommendation that includes preliminary cost benefit
analysis
Research Assistance
Provide LEED support to design team throughout design stage
Evaluate alternatives for materials and approach
Track performance with LEED goals and selected strategies
Provide support for developing and determining the General Conditions and Contractor requirements in
the construction documents
Coordinate documentation requirements with the project team
LEED Documentation
Prepare and submit final LEED checklist and narratives
Manage the consultant team template letters
Analyze credit interpretations and USGBC responses to negotiate credit rulings
Provide support for contractor in implementing and developing the Contractor’s LEED plan
Assumptions
It is assumed the LEED documentation occurs prior to construction beginning
It is assumed consultant information required to submit for LEED documentation will be submitted online
as required, or provided in hardcopy and electronic at no cost to DLR Group KKE
The LEED Certification Fees ($2,250 per building per the 2010 USGBC Fee Schedule) will be billed to
the Owner as a Reimbursable Expense.
Not included in this contract
o Project cost estimating
o Daylight modeling
o Post occupancy analysis
o Commissioning
We are committed to the LEED goals defined in this agreement and agree to provide the project team
information and resources towards this goal. Ultimately, DLR Group KKE has no control over the Owner,
consultant’s design or the contractor and as a result cannot guarantee that the project will achieve LEED
Certification.
Compensation
We propose to provide the scope of work outlined above for the lump sum fee as follows, plus reimbursable
expenses.
LEED Planning Education and Presentations $9,400
Research and Design team assistance $6,500
LEED Documentation $41,800
Energy Modeling $6,500
DLR Group KKE Total fee: $64,200
Note: See Assumptions above for Certification Fee to be paid by Owner.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 34
Mr. Sean Walther
November 3, 2010
DLR Group KKE 40-10232-00
Page 3
Minneapolis Des Moines Chicago Colorado Springs Denver Irvine Honolulu Lincoln Los Angeles Las Vegas Modesto
Omaha Orlando Overland Park Palm Springs Phoenix Portland Riverside Sacramento Seattle Tucson
Attached with this proposal, you will find a preliminary LEED Checklist indicating the credits that we hope to
achieve with our current design efforts. You will see that the project hopes to achieve a Silver rating with our
current efforts. These results of course cannot be guaranteed, and there are some factors that could have a
significant impact on the ability of the project to achieve the LEED Silver rating within current design parameters.
1. Costs for inclusion of the Geothermal Heat Exchange system have risen due to geologic conditions at
the individual sites. This may limit the available energy savings from this technology.
2. DLR Group KKE and our consultants have no control over project costs and market conditions.
3. Interpretation of LEED point systems and verification of design will be ongoing. Information contained
herein is only preliminary in nature.
Sincerely,
DLR Group KKE
Michael Clark, AIA
Senior Associate
Main: 612/977-3500
Direct: 612/977-3517
skt
Attachment: Preliminary LEED v3 Checklist for the St Louis Park Fire Stations
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Fire Stations Project Update
Page 35
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 18, 2010
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
Guests: Stacy Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, and Martha Ingram, Kennedy & Graven.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of September 20, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to approve
the EDA Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard
Village), Series 2010A and Series 2010B.
EDA Resolution No. 10-17 and 10-18
EDA Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2010
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that agenda items 7a and 7b are
interrelated. He explained that in its redevelopment contract with Union Land II, the
EDA agreed to reimburse the Redeveloper for certain Public Improvements and other
Public Redevelopment costs it incurred related to the Hoigaard Village project through
issuance of two taxable TIF Notes. He stated that under the Contract, those Notes may be
refinanced with one or more tax exempt Notes. He explained that the Redeveloper is
required to meet certain parameters under the Contract in order for the EDA to refund
those Notes with tax exempt Notes and that the Redeveloper has met those required
conditions.
He stated that the EDA was being asked to complete the second and final step in the
issuance of the tax exempt financing. Step 1 required the EDA to authorize the
negotiation of final business terms for issuance of tax exempt Bonds and a Note, as well
as City Council authorization for the EDA to issue the obligations. Those authorizations
occurred on September 7th. He indicated that since that time the business terms for
issuance of the Bonds and Note have been successfully negotiated; and the EDA can
proceed to Step 2, which is adopting the resolutions awarding the actual sale of the Bonds
and Note.
He explained that the proposed, tax exempt Series 2010 “A” Bonds will be issued in the
total principal amount of $3,495,000 and will have a true interest cost of approximately
5.14%. The proposed, tax exempt 2010 “B” Note will be issued in the total principal
amount of $935,000 and will bear interest at a rate of just under 4%. Since the Bonds and
the Note will have lower interest rates than the taxable notes, the refinancing will allow the
principal and interest to be paid down more quickly. Both the Bonds and the Note will
have a term of 12 years and are limited obligations of the EDA meaning that only tax
increment revenues generated from the Stage 1 and 4 properties are pledged to pay their
principal and interest.
He advised that the issuance of the tax exempt TIF revenue Bonds and Note will not
require any cash payments from the EDA or City. All costs associated with the Bond and
Note issuance are paid from gross proceeds of the tax increment. The proposed tax
exempt refinancing is consistent with the requirements of the Redevelopment Contract
with Union Land II.
He stated that the project’s final two stages are scheduled to be completed by the end of
next year, however, these dates are not going to be met and the Redevelopment Contract
needs to be amended to extend the deadlines for one year. He stated that the amendment
is required to eliminate any technical default that could disrupt the financing and to
provide time for the City to work with the redeveloper to decide how to complete the
project. He added that the Redeveloper will be attending a Council study session next
month to discuss realistic schedules for completing the project.
President Finkelstein requested confirmation that the Redeveloper will not be reimbursed
for any costs until work is completed on the Adagio and Medlow Row components. He
also stated that the City is not pledging any warranty regarding the projected amount of
tax increment.
EDA Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2010
Mr. Hunt stated that this is correct.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt
EDA Resolution No. 10-17 Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms,
Covenants and Directions for the Issuance of $3,495,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds
(Hoigaard Village), Series 2010A.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt
EDA Resolution No. 10-18 Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms,
Covenants and Directions for the Issuance of a Tax Exempt Tax Increment Revenue
Refunding Note (Hoigaard Village), Series 2010B, in the Principal Amount of $935,000.
The motion passed 7-0.
7b. Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC,
et al. EDA Resolution No. 10-19
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt
EDA Resolution No. 10-19 Approving a Fifth Amendment of a Contract for Private
Redevelopment by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and
Union Land II LLC.
Commissioner Sanger stated that she was frustrated by the repeated construction delays
and was hopeful that the redeveloper will not request another extension of the contract.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period October 1, 2010 through November 5,
2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:35:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/16/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,450.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMERICAN SANDBLASTING INC
1,450.00
26.54DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
26.54
2,554.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
2,554.50
3,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
3,000.00
1,560.10DEVELOPMENT - EDA BALANCE SHEE LOANS RECEIVABLE - CURRENTM&I BANK
1,560.10
94.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNEAPOLIS ST PAUL BUSINESS J
94.00
187.28DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
187.28
440,067.05HSTI G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMTPARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERVICES
440,067.05
1,825.91DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIGNATION SIGN GROUP
1,825.91
5,825.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSTUTE, VICKI
5,825.00
400.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWILLEY JR, FOSTER
400.00
Report Totals 456,990.38
EDA Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 2
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution requesting the City Council to call for a public hearing
relative to the proposed Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (an Economic Development District).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to request that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider the
establishment of an Economic Development Tax Increment Financing District to facilitate
Hardcoat Inc.’s proposed renovation of the former Flame Metals property?
BACKGROUND:
Hardcoat Incorporated (located at 7300 W. Lake Street) wishes to acquire the former Flame Metals
property located across the street to the south at 7317 W. Lake Street. The company plans to renovate
the building and site, and relocate its operations there. The existing industrial building is
approximately 33,600 square feet and was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and exterior had
numerous building code deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s
interior has been emptied, thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and many (but not all) code deficiencies
have been addressed. Nearly all the building’s operating systems have been removed.
The proposed project includes a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building
as well as a small addition. Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows
and dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy
efficient HVAC equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities, as well
as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space on the north side of the building.
Once the renovation is complete, Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately 25,000 square feet of
the building. The balance will be leased to a complementary business and provide Hardcoat with
future expansion capacity.
The total cost to renovate the building and grounds is estimated at $1.4 million. Of this amount,
Hardcoat has applied for up to $420,000 in Construction Assistance: which equals approximately
33% of total renovation costs. This is the maximum percentage for which businesses may apply
under the CAP. This amount could be reduced based upon more refinements to Hardcoat’s cost
estimates and whatever cost savings the company receives through Xcel Energy’s Energy Design
Assistance program to which it recently applied. As per the CAP Policy, the above is exclusive
of soft costs, permits, furnishings, the cost to physically relocate the business, the cost to reinstall
existing equipment or the cost of new equipment. When one adds the cost of the property
($1,050,000), the hard costs related to the building renovation ($1,400,000), the cost of new
equipment ($500,000), as well as soft costs and permits estimated at ($136,500), the entire
project will total nearly $3.1 million.
EDA Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
Structure of CAP Funds
Funds would be provided to Hardcoat on a reimbursement basis upon prove-up that qualified
construction costs were incurred. The reimbursement would be structured as a forgivable loan
through a mortgage. Provided the building is held and properly maintained by Hardcoat for 5
years after project completion, the entirety of the loan would be forgiven. If the property is
sold within 5 years of project completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full
along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding was provided.
Proposed Funding Sources
As allowed by recent legislation, the source of the CAP funds is tax increment generated by nine
of the City’s TIF districts. These funds would be disbursed from the Development Fund. Given
the size of Hardcoat’s CAP request, creation of an Economic Development TIF District is
proposed to reimburse a portion of the CAP funding. The proposed financial assistance meets the
requirements necessary to create an Economic Development TIF District. Those requirements
include: (1) encouraging a manufacturer to remain in the state; (2) increasing employment; and
(3) enhancing the tax base. Hardcoat’s project would qualify as an Economic Development TIF
District. Such a TIF district would generate approximately $190,000 over the life of the district
(the maximum term of Economic Development TIF Districts is 9 years). These funds would then
be used to partially reimburse the Development Fund for the funds provided to Hardcoat.
Request for TIF Assistance
At the November 8th Study Session the EDA reviewed the CAP application from Hardcoat
which was favorably received. As a result, staff was directed to call for a public hearing on the
proposed Economic Development TIF district and to begin drafting a formal Redevelopment
Contract with Hardcoat.
Call for Public Hearing
The CAP and TIF programs are run by the EDA. However in order to create a TIF district, city
councils are statutorily required to hold a public hearing. To start the TIF district process the
EDA must formally request the City Council to set a date and hold a public hearing. Calling for
the public hearing is the first step in the formal creation of the Hardcoat Tax Increment
Financing District. The public hearing is scheduled to be held on December 20, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Setting a hearing date for the Hardcoat TIF District does not, in itself, authorize or commit the
EDA/City to any level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it simply enables
the City to hold a public hearing to consider the creation of the new TIF district. The EDA will
have the opportunity to consider the precise amount of financial assistance along with other
terms when a redevelopment contract with the Redeveloper is presented. Such a contract is
likely to be submitted to the EDA prior to the end of the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing Hardcoat up to $420,000 through the Construction Assistance Program to renovate the
former Flame Metals property. Such funds would be provided on a reimbursement basis for
qualified costs incurred and structured as a forgivable loan from tax increment generated by the
City’s various TIF districts. It is also proposed that the EDA consider creating an Economic
Development TIF District in conjunction with this project so as to allow the EDA to reimburse
itself approximately $190,000 of the above assistance over the 9-year life of the district.
EDA Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Construction Assistance Program is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it
facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution
TIF Schedule
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT).
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) as follows:
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote the development and
redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”), and in connection with this program has established Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the
“Project”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047; and
WHEREAS, the Authority is proposing a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project (the “Modification”), the establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
(the “TIF District”) within the Project, and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the
“TIF Plan”) for the TIF District, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The Authority hereby requests that the Council call for a public hearing on December 20,
2010, to consider the Modification, establishment of the TIF District and adoption of the TIF
Plan, and cause notice of said public hearing to be given as required by law.
2. Authority staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to
prepare the Modification, TIF Plan and related documents, and to undertake all actions
necessary to bring the Modification and TIF Plan before the Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
November 15, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(an economic development district established under the 2010
Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 216, H.F. No. 2695, Section 31)
November 8, 2010 Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions,
detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources
and uses of funds) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
November 15, 2010 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
November 15, 2010 City Council calls for a public hearing.
November 17, 2010 Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued
on the property to be included in the TIF District.
NA County receives TIF Plan for review for County Road impacts (at least 45
days prior to public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to
review the TIF Plan to determine if any county roads will be impacted by
the development. Because the City staff believes that the proposed tax
increment financing district will not require unplanned county road
improvements, the TIF Plan will not be forwarded to the County Board 45
days prior to the public hearing. Please be aware that the County Board
could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after
the public hearing
November 19, 2010 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax and
mail on or before November 19, 2010]
November 22, 2010 Ehlers conducts internal review of the Plans.
December 9, 2010 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not
more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers will submit notice & map to
the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on or before December 2, 2010 at
sunlegals@acnpapers.com]
December 15, 2010 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in
compliance with City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution
approving the Plans.
EDA Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(an economic development district established under the 2010
Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 216, H.F. No. 2695, Section 31)
December 20, 2010 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
December 20, 2010 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment
of the Hardcoat Economic Development Tax Increment Financing District
and passes resolution approving the Plans. [Ehlers will email Council
packet information to the City on December 13, 2010]
December 21, 2010 City can issue building permits.
__________, 2010 City authorizes Ehlers to request certification of the TIF District.
Before June 30, 2011 Ehlers requests certification of the TIF District from the state and county.
Before July 1, 2011 Construction of project begins.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175,
subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
(2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1.
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 11, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Organizational
Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Facilities
Manager (Mr. Altepeter), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 25, 2010
This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
2. Highway 100 Project Update
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and five concepts developed jointly by Mn/DOT, the City,
and the County. He reminded the Council that this is Mn/DOT’s project and Mn/DOT will be
leading the project. He also presented a project summary and goals for the Highway 100 project.
He advised that Concept A (Base) represents a “do nothing” alternative with only two bridge
replacements, while Concept E represents the most expensive reconstruction design. He noted
that it was his feeling Concept E is not being considered by Mn/DOT and Mn/DOT is likely
considering a project that is somewhere between Concept A and Concept E. He stated that
Concept E is the only plan that takes the homes on Toledo Avenue. He added that Mn/DOT will
be holding a public meeting in November or December; in the meantime, staff will continue to
evaluate the options pending Mn/DOT’s modeling of the project. He requested that Council
provide any input to staff on the concepts developed by Mn/DOT. He added that further
information is available on Mn/DOT’s website as well as the City’s website.
Council discussed the modeling of the project and the public input process.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about Mn/DOT’s apparent indifference to the
homeowners that may be impacted by the project.
Councilmember Sanger stated that Mn/DOT previously stated it would construct noise walls and
asked if the project will include installation of noise walls.
Mr. Rardin replied that he did not know at this time. He stated that staff will be working with
Mn/DOT on different options of what will and will not be included in the project and pointed out
that the concepts represent significantly scaled back versions of previous iterations.
Councilmember Sanger stated that when Mn/DOT did the temporary fix, the lanes were made
narrower. She asked if Mn/DOT will correct the narrow lanes.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 11, 2010
Mr. Rardin replied that he believed the narrow lanes will be fixed and agreed to ask Mn/DOT
about this issue.
Mayor Jacobs asked if staff had any sense of the timing for notifying the property owners on
Toledo Avenue.
Mr. Rardin stated that between now and the end of 2011, Mn/DOT will be looking to winnow
the concepts down to one preferred alternative.
Councilmember Sanger stated that if Mn/DOT does not buy the Toledo Avenue homes, the City
may wish to consider what it can offer in terms of rehab assistance.
3. Municipal Service Center (MSC) Renovation Project Update
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Altepeter. He reviewed the financial
report for the MSC project and advised that overall, the project was completed within the
budgeted $9.5 million. He stated that Change Order #6, which will require formal Council
action, includes the final group of changes needed to occur during completion of construction.
He indicated that there are four outstanding items not included in Change Order #6 which staff
and the City Attorney do not deem acceptable involving work claimed by the excavation
subcontractor. He explained that one of the items is a claim for lost revenue for not selling sand
they expected to mine from the site; the City Attorney and project architect have stated that there
is no basis for this claim. He then discussed considering the proposed retrofitting of the existing
MSC bay lighting to energy efficient fluorescent fixtures; this work was initially removed from
the MSC design to reduce cost and explore grant funding sources. The existing Metal Halide
bulb fixtures provided poor lighting and are not as energy efficient. Replacement would be done
utilizing approximately $50,000 of the remaining project balance with the work being done
separate from the general contractor, therefore not requiring a change order. He advised that the
payback on the new lighting is approximately seven to ten years; in addition, rebates will be
available to help offset some of the cost.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with the proposed MSC
lighting improvements and to use the remaining MSC project balance funds to pay for this work.
4. Update on PPL/Louisiana Court Financial Plan
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and stated since the July 12th Council discussion regarding
the financial and operational status of PPL’s Louisiana Court development, staff has been
working with PPL to complete a refinancing plan consistent with Council’s direction. He
advised that the City’s $500,000 contribution to the project is intended to reduce the size of the
new bond issue as well as to increase the investment in capital improvements to the
development. He indicated the first priority is to get the debt reduced, and staff is requesting that
Council be flexible in how the $500,000 is used until it is determined what the other partners are
doing as well as the possible grant from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there is anything that can be done to incent the owners to
sell the property.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 11, 2010
Mr. Locke advised that it will be ten years before a sale of the property would be practical. He
reiterated that the proposed financial plan will cut the debt in half, will provide additional capital
dollars for improvements, and will provide a shallow rent subsidy pilot program; all of these
components will put the project in a much better financial situation.
Councilmember Ross expressed her support for the financial plan and stated that she recently
toured the property which provided her with a better idea of what needs to be accomplished in
terms of capital improvements to bring the units up to a more livable standard.
Councilmember Sanger stated that one of her concerns continues to be the high vacancy rate and
requested further information regarding the City’s exit strategy with respect to the shallow rent
subsidy program.
Ms. Schnitker explained that the shallow rent subsidy program is intended to be a three year pilot
program; the program will be reassessed at the end of the three year period to see if the program
is meeting the needs of the community and to see if the program has helped reduce the vacancy
rates. She added it is reasonable to expect that the City will not have to continue the shallow rent
subsidy program after three years.
Councilmember Santa stated that she wants to make sure the City is not funding this project only
to the minimum, and that the City is maintaining a high quality and diverse housing stock.
Ms. Schnitker reiterated that the financial plan provides an opportunity to lower the property’s
debt and provide more cash flow to address the maintenance and capital improvement needs over
time. She stated that the focus now should be on addressing the vacant units to improve the
marketability of the project, which will generate more revenue to help with the project’s cash
flow. She added that PPL has been given an indication from traditional funders that there will be
an opportunity for more grant money for rehab in the future.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she wants this project to be successful but that she continues
to have some general concerns about the City engaging in a subsidy program. She stated the
City needs to have an exit strategy for the subsidy program.
Ms. Schnitker stated that in the past, the City has had a program similar to the shallow rent
subsidy program and when the funds ran out, the program was ended.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the refinancing plan will allow PPL to do the capital
improvements to the property and provide more cash flow. She questioned whether the City
should consider only providing the debt reserve equity contribution and capital improvements
contribution at this time in order to see if this contribution is enough to reduce the vacancy rate.
Councilmember Mavity stated the shallow rent subsidy program will provide an immediate
benefit to the property, while the capital improvements will take time.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to initiate the formal refinancing approval
process.
It was the consensus of the City Council to authorize the Housing Authority to administer the
shallow rent subsidy program.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 11, 2010
5. City Council Governance Model and Norms
Ms. Gothberg facilitated a discussion with the Council regarding the Council’s working
relationship and the Council norms.
Staff was asked to return to the City Council with proposed alternatives for future
communications.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 25, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for October 25th. He stated that the
Council may wish to accommodate Safety in the Park’s request for an audience with the Council
and invite them to the study session on October 25th. He indicated it will be helpful for staff to
discuss with the Council the process used to analyze and respond to the information forthcoming
from the three studies from the County.
It was the consensus of the City Council to invite Safety in the Park to attend the study session
on October 25, 2010.
Mr. Harmening advised that a special study session is proposed for October 18th at 6:30 p.m. in
order to discuss the water utility.
Mr. Harmening stated that Councilmember Mavity received an email from Nancy Rose on behalf
of Friends of Bass Lake expressing concern about the condition of the lake. He stated that the
Council should have a study session discussion regarding storm water and water management;
Friends of Bass Lake could be invited to that meeting.
Mayor Jacobs stated that this should be a broader discussion to include Hannan Lake and Twin
Lakes.
It was the consensus of the City Council to invite all interested parties to attend the Council
study session regarding water quality. It was also the consensus of the City Council to request
that representatives of the Watershed Districts attend this study session.
Mr. Harmening reported that Dairy Queen is changing its proposal in order to come into
compliance with the drive-thru issue and will not be on the Council agenda on October 18th.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the Council have a study session discussion regarding the
establishment of a registry for domestic partners in St. Louis Park.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. Update on Tax Forfeited Property Purchase – 2944 Brunswick Avenue South
8. Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) Grant Application for 2005
Louisiana Ave. South
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 1, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul
Omodt (arrived at 6:55 p.m.), and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Chris Thompson (AMEC Geomatrix, Inc.) and Sarah Sonsalla (Kennedy and Graven)
1. Environmental Investigation and Property Acquisition Update – 7015 Walker Street
(former Reynolds Welding Supply property)
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and a summary of the findings of the Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by AMEC Geomatrix. He then introduced Mr.
Chris Thompson with AMEC Geomatrix and Sarah Sonsalla, outside counsel with Kennedy and
Graven.
Mr. Hunt stated that if there is Council consensus to move forward with the purchase of the
property, staff will work with Mr. Thompson to enter the subject property into the MPCA’s
Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up Program (VIC) prior to purchase. He added staff would
also work with the property owner to obtain a Certificate of Property Maintenance and then
schedule a closing date toward the end of the year.
Mr. Thompson explained that the VIC program along with the Land Recycling Act provide the
statutory liability protection for a voluntary purchaser of property. He stated that they have
performed the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) and while the
MPCA staff has not yet seen the ESAs, the City has been thorough in looking for identified
releases, i.e., chemicals or metals in the soil in order to obtain a No Association determination to
the identified releases. He stated that it is not a matter of being approved into the VIC program,
but rather, the City applies to the VIC program for their technical assistance, they review the
Phase I and Phase II reports, and the City provides VIC staff with a history of the property,
noting potential chemicals affecting the site, noting identified releases, and noting the chemicals
identified in the soil. He indicated that if the City requests the MPCA’s technical assistance and
agrees with the contents of the reports, the City will get the No Association determination
because it did not previously own the property. He further explained that there are volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) at this site that are likely derived from use of the site. He indicated
that there have been multiple uses of this site that likely used chlorinated solvents; the
concentrations in the soil and groundwater are not suggestive of significant impacts at the site.
He stated that there have also been impacts in the groundwater that are likely due to other sites
away from this property, including the National Lead and Reilly Tar sites. He advised that in
AMEC’s opinion, this is not suggestive of a source on this site, even though it has been
acknowledged that there was a machine shop on this site at one time. He stated that the plan is to
obtain MPCA buy-in, prior to closing, that all appropriate inquiry on this site has been performed
and that the City has identified those chemicals of concern.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes November 1, 2010
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked what would happen if another contaminant is identified after the
closing that is not one of the contaminants identified up to now in the process.
Mr. Thompson stated that there is no reason to believe that anyone will be looking for additional
contaminants and if there are other contaminants identified that are due to someone else’s
operation, e.g., across the street, then those contaminants would be someone else’s responsibility.
Ms. Sonsalla advised that if additional contaminants are found on the site, there could be clean-
up costs attributable to the City. She indicated that there could also be natural resource damage
if it is found that the property was causing damage to other sites, resulting in liability. She
explained that by going through the VIC program, under the statute the City would not be
responsible in the future for any natural resource damage to other sites.
Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that there would be no liability on the part of the
City even if contaminants were not found until after the purchase of the property.
Ms. Sonsalla confirmed that this was correct.
Mr. Thompson stated that from a legal standpoint, the most important component is meeting the
“all appropriate inquiry” standard and ensuring that the City conducted all due diligence for the
site, including history, ownership, title to the property, and whether there are environmental
needs on the site. He added that this all appropriate inquiry was conducted during Phase I and
provides the City with protection as an innocent landowner.
Ms. Sonsalla added that even if the City did not enter the VIC program, the City still qualifies as
an innocent landowner under the statute.
Councilmember Mavity asked if this transaction represents standard procedure for the City.
Mr. Hunt replied in the affirmative, adding that the City underwent a similar procedure for the
American Inn and Dworsky properties.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed concern that in the past, the City thought it had conducted all
appropriate inquiries for a property and identified all contaminants, and it turned out that
additional contaminants were identified and a lawsuit followed. She asked what kind of
protection the City has for avoiding this occurrence.
Ms. Sonsalla replied that the City’s protection lies in entering the VIC program and in obtaining
the No Association determination. She added that a lawsuit would determine who is responsible
for clean-up of a site.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the closing be contingent on the City enrolling in the
VIC program and that the closing be contingent on the City’s receipt of the No Association
letter. He also requested that the City obtain an opinion letter from outside counsel stating that
all due diligence has been conducted for this transaction and that the City can proceed with the
purchase of the property.
Ms. Sonsalla was amenable to preparing an opinion letter for the City stating that under the
statute, if the City obtains the No Association determination, the City is protected from liability;
the opinion letter would also state that if the City is unable to obtain the No Association
determination, the City would still qualify as an innocent landowner pursuant to the statute.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes November 1, 2010
Mr. Thompson stated that staff would have to clarify whether the City must first obtain
ownership of the property before receiving the No Association letter. He added that as a
voluntary purchaser of the property and assuming the City did not operate on it at any time prior
to purchase, the City will get the No Association letter.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked who would be responsible for the cost of any clean-up.
Mr. Thompson explained that the No Association letter means that the City is not liable for the
cost of any clean-up, but the City is still responsible for dealing with impacts on the site; in other
words, the No Association letter breaks the chain of liability from past owners to the City under
the Land Recycling Act.
Mr. Locke stated that by the City purchasing this property, the City does not take on any liability
for the contamination; if something is a real threat, the MPCA would look to the former owner
for remediation. He indicated that the City will have to deal with it at some point and that is laid
out in the VIC program; in this case, at the point that the property is reused, clean-up of any
contamination on the site would occur and there are a number of ways to get that done, including
environmental grant programs and tax increment dollars. He added that the City takes
responsibility for the site, but is not on the hook for the costs of clean-up.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger questioned the economic benefit to the City of purchasing the property.
Mr. Hunt stated that the purchase price for the site is $260,000 and short term costs identified to
demolish the building are approximately $65,000. He stated that the clean-up costs are estimated
at $262,000 and the City would seek grant assistance for the long-term clean-up costs. He added
that the County could likely fund these costs. He noted that it is proposed that the site be
acquired for blight removal purposes and stormwater retention related to the developments north
of the site.
Mr. Locke explained that by purchasing this property, the City would remove the old building
without having to deal with the environmental issues, thus improving the appearance of the site
by removing the blight. He added that the City has an opportunity to purchase the property at a
reasonable price and could resell it at a later date.
Councilmember Santa stated her belief that it makes sense for the City to take control of this
property because the entire area is tired and is challenged with poor soils and questionable
groundwater. She stated it makes sense for the City to step forward no matter what happens in
this area in the future.
Councilmember Mavity agreed with Councilmember Santa and stated she did not want to see the
suggested conditions to closing become an obstacle to the City’s purchase. She added that in the
past, the City has done a good job as it relates to environmental concerns and the City should
proceed with the purchase of this site.
Councilmember Omodt agreed with Councilmembers Mavity and Santa. He added that if the
City can take control of the property and clean it up to City standards, the City should clean it up
sooner rather than later.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes November 1, 2010
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with the
acquisition of 7015 Walker Street.
The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
2. Hwy 7/Wooddale Project Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amendment to the On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sales Liquor License for Rojo.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve premises amendment to the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sales liquor
license for Rojo West End LLC doing business as Rojo Mexican Grill located at 1602 West End
Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the premises amendment for the liquor license at Rojo?
BACKGROUND:
Rojo located at 1602 West End Boulevard has made an application to the City of St. Louis Park
for an amendment to expand their current on-sale intoxicating liquor license premises. The
expansion of the licensed premises for Rojo would encompass the premises of Sauce Pizza &
Wine which closed on October 31, 2010. The final licensed premises of Rojo Mexican Grill
would consist of 9,065 square feet of interior space, with seating available for 308 persons, and a
combined exterior patio space with seating for 116 persons. Mr. Adam Lehr, the former
manager at Sauce, will be the on-site manager for Rojo Mexican Grill.
City Ordinance Section 3-68 (a) states each liquor license shall be issued only for the exact
rooms and square footage described in the application. A license is valid only in the compact
and contiguous building or structure situated on the premises described in the license.
City Ordinance Section 3-106 states proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which
changes the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premise previously licensed
shall not be allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the liquor license.
Should Council approve the premises amendment to Rojo’s liquor license, no liquor will actually
be served in the amended premises new area until all required compliance is met with the City
Inspections Department.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing by the City Council on December 20,
2010 relative to the proposed Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (an Economic Development District).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to hold a public hearing to consider the establishment of an
Economic Development Tax Increment Financing District to facilitate Hardcoat Inc.’s proposed
renovation of the former Flame Metals property?
BACKGROUND:
Hardcoat Incorporated (located at 7300 W. Lake Street) wishes to acquire the former Flame Metals
property located across the street to the south at 7317 W. Lake Street. The company plans to renovate
the building and site, and relocate its operations there. The existing industrial building is
approximately 33,600 square feet and was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and exterior had
numerous building code deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s
interior has been emptied, thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and many (but not all) code deficiencies
have been addressed. Nearly all the building’s operating systems have been removed.
The proposed project includes a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building
as well as a small addition. Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows
and dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy
efficient HVAC equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities, as well
as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space on the north side of the building.
Once the renovation is complete, Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately 25,000 square feet of
the building. The balance will be leased to a complementary business and provide Hardcoat with
future expansion capacity.
The total cost to renovate the building and grounds is estimated at $1.4 million. Of this amount,
Hardcoat has applied for up to $420,000 in Construction Assistance: which equals approximately
33% of total renovation costs. This is the maximum percentage for which businesses may apply
under the CAP. This amount could be reduced based upon more refinements to Hardcoat’s cost
estimates and whatever cost savings the company receives through Xcel Energy’s Energy Design
Assistance program to which it recently applied. As per the CAP Policy, the above is exclusive
of soft costs, permits, furnishings, the cost to physically relocate the business, the cost to reinstall
existing equipment or the cost of new equipment. When one adds the cost of the property
($1,050,000), the hard costs related to the building renovation ($1,400,000), the cost of new
equipment ($500,000), as well as soft costs and permits estimated at ($136,500), the entire
project will total nearly $3.1 million.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
Structure of CAP Funds
Funds would be provided to Hardcoat on a reimbursement basis upon prove-up that qualified
construction costs were incurred. The reimbursement would be structured as a forgivable loan
through a mortgage. Provided the building is held and properly maintained by Hardcoat for 5
years after project completion, the entirety of the loan would be forgiven. If the property is
sold within 5 years of project completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full
along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding was provided.
Proposed Funding Sources
As allowed by recent legislation, the source of the CAP funds is tax increment generated by nine
of the City’s TIF districts. These funds would be disbursed from the Development Fund. Given
the size of Hardcoat’s CAP request, creation of an Economic Development TIF District is
proposed to reimburse a portion of the CAP funding. The proposed financial assistance meets the
requirements necessary to create an Economic Development TIF District. Those requirements
include: (1) encouraging a manufacturer to remain in the state; (2) increasing employment; and
(3) enhancing the tax base. Hardcoat’s project would qualify as an Economic Development TIF
District. Such a TIF district would generate approximately $190,000 over the life of the district
(the maximum term of Economic Development TIF Districts is 9 years). These funds would then
be used to partially reimburse the Development Fund for the funds provided to Hardcoat.
Request for TIF Assistance
At the November 8th Study Session the EDA/Council reviewed the CAP application from
Hardcoat which was favorably received. As a result, staff was directed to begin drafting a formal
Redevelopment Contract with Hardcoat and to call for a public hearing on the proposed
Economic Development TIF district.
Call for Public Hearing
The CAP and TIF programs are run by the EDA. However in order to create a TIF district, city
councils are statutorily required to hold a public hearing. The EDA has officially requested the
City Council to set a date and hold a public hearing for the Hardcoat project. Calling for the
public hearing is the first step in the formal creation of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing
District. The public hearing is scheduled to be held on December 20, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Setting a hearing date for the Hardcoat TIF District does not, in itself, authorize or commit the
EDA/City to any level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it simply enables
the City to hold a public hearing to consider the creation of the new TIF district. The EDA will
have the opportunity to consider the precise amount of financial assistance along with other
terms when a redevelopment contract with the Redeveloper is presented. Such a contract is
likely to be submitted to the EDA prior to the end of the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing Hardcoat up to $420,000 through the Construction Assistance Program to renovate the
former Flame Metals property. Such funds would be provided on a reimbursement basis for
qualified costs incurred and structured as a forgivable loan from tax increment generated by the
City’s various TIF districts. It is also proposed that the EDA consider creating an Economic
Development TIF District in conjunction with this project so as to allow the EDA to reimburse
itself approximately $190,000 of the above assistance over the 9-year life of the district.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Construction Assistance Program is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it
facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution
TIF Schedule
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, AND THE
ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on December 20, 2010, at
approximately 7:30 P.M., to hold a public hearing on a proposed modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Modification”), the proposed
establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District (an economic development
district) (the “TIF District”), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan for
the TIF District (the “TIF Plan”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082
and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended.
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff and consultants are
directed and authorized to prepare the Modification and TIF Plan and to forward such documents
to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions, including Hennepin County and Independent School
District No. 283. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing,
together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official
newspaper of the City not less than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to December 20, 2010, and
to place a copy of the Modification and TIF Plan on file in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall
and to make such copy available for inspection by the public.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(an economic development district established under the 2010
Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 216, H.F. No. 2695, Section 31)
November 8, 2010 Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions,
detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources
and uses of funds) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
November 15, 2010 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
November 15, 2010 City Council calls for a public hearing.
November 17, 2010 Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued
on the property to be included in the TIF District.
NA County receives TIF Plan for review for County Road impacts (at least 45
days prior to public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to
review the TIF Plan to determine if any county roads will be impacted by
the development. Because the City staff believes that the proposed tax
increment financing district will not require unplanned county road
improvements, the TIF Plan will not be forwarded to the County Board 45
days prior to the public hearing. Please be aware that the County Board
could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after
the public hearing
November 19, 2010 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax and
mail on or before November 19, 2010]
November 22, 2010 Ehlers conducts internal review of the Plans.
December 9, 2010 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not
more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers will submit notice & map to
the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on or before December 2, 2010 at
sunlegals@acnpapers.com]
December 15, 2010 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in
compliance with City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution
approving the Plans.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Subject: Call for Public Hearing - Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(an economic development district established under the 2010
Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 216, H.F. No. 2695, Section 31)
December 20, 2010 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
December 20, 2010 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment
of the Hardcoat Economic Dvelopment Tax Increment Financing District
and passes resolution approving the Plans. [Ehlers will email Council
packet information to the City on December 13, 2010]
December 21, 2010 City can issue building permits.
__________, 2010 City authorizes Ehlers to request certification of the TIF District.
Before June 30, 2011 Ehlers requests certification of the TIF District from the state and county.
Before July 1, 2011 Construction of project begins.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175,
subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
(2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1.
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 9375 Cedar Lake Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 9375 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - P.I.D. 07-117-21-32-0007.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Frank Conati, owner of the single family residence at 9375 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park, has
requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for his home and assess the cost
against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $6,500.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 9375 Cedar Lake Road
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
9375 CEDAR LAKE ROAD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-117-21-32-0007
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 9375 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park, has
petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water
service line for the single family residence located at 9375 Cedar Lake Road; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $6,500.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3245 Sumter Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3245 Sumter Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 17-117-21-23-0032.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Terrence and Constance Nesbitt, owners of the single family residence at 3245 Sumter Avenue South,
St. Louis Park, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for their home
and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the water
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has
been determined to be $6,675.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 3245 Sumter Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
3245 SUMTER AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 17-117-21-23-0032
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3245 Sumter Avenue South, St. Louis Park, have
petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water
service line for the single family residence located at 3245 Sumter Avenue South, and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing,
right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $6,675.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of
5.85 %.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
City Council Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Traffic Study Number 621: Authorize the Installation of Parking Restrictions at 6300 Walker
Street (Park Spanish Immersion School).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution rescinding prior parking restrictions and authorizing parking
restrictions at 6300 Walker Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to authorize the installation of the parking restrictions as noted in
this staff report?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request from staff at the Park Spanish Immersion School to restrict parking
along both sides of the North Frontage Road of Trunk Highway 7 and the east side of Dakota
Avenue from the frontage road to the end of the dead end (see attachment). Currently, there are
parking restrictions along the south side of the frontage road and on either side of the driveways
near the front of the school. School staff are requesting the change because construction of the
Wooddale Avenue Bridge temporarily restricted the use of the frontage road by parents, who
now drop off children in the parking lot behind the school. School staff think that it would be
safer to continue having parents drop children off in the parking lot, and would like parking on
the frontage road restricted.
City staff met with school staff and reviewed this request. The existing restrictions were put into
place in 2004 at the request of the school district. City staff finds this request reasonable, and is
therefore recommending Council approve the attached resolutions rescinding the existing
resolution regulating parking and authorizing the installation of parking restrictions along both
sides of the frontage road and on the east side of Dakota Avenue, as requested by school staff.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Mark Hanson for Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Traffic Study Number 621: Authorize the Installation of Parking Restrictions at 6300 Walker Street
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RES. NO. 04-039 AND AUTHORIZING
INSTALLATION OF “NO PARKING” RESTRICTIONS ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 7 FROM
WOODDALE AVENUE TO DAKOTA AVENUE, AND ON THE EAST SIDE
OF DAKOTA AVENUE FROM THE NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF
HIGHWAY 7 TO THE DEAD END TO THE NORTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 621
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that the following traffic controls meet the requirements of the City’s policy for
installation of Stop signs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 04-039 be rescinded.
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No Parking” along both sides of the North Frontage Road of Highway 7 from Wooddale
Avenue to Dakota Avenue.
2. “No Parking” on the east side of Dakota Avenue from the North Frontage Road of
Highway 7 to the dead end to the north.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2010
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
W
o
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
North Frontage Road of Highway 7Dakota AvenueTraffic Study No. 621: Parking Restrictions at Park Spanish Immersion School
Existing "No Parking" Restrictions
Proposed "No Parking" Restrictions
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Traffic Study No. 621: Authorize the Instation of Parking Restrictions at 6300 Walker Street Page 3
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
City Council Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Traffic Study Number 622: Authorize the Installation of Parking Restrictions at 4801 41st Street
West (Susan Lindgren School).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution rescinding prior parking restrictions and authorizing parking
restrictions at 4801 41st Street West.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to authorize the installation of the parking restrictions as noted in
this staff report?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request from staff at Susan Lindgren School to modify the existing bus
parking area on 41st Street West. Currently, the bus parking area extends the length of the
school. Due to changes in how the buses drop off and pick up children, school staff has
requested the bus parking area be reduced, allowing just enough space for one bus to park. The
rest of the area will change to be unrestricted parking. The request does not change any “No
Parking” or “Permit Parking Only” areas.
City staff met with school staff and reviewed this request. City staff finds this request
reasonable, and is therefore recommending Council approve the attached resolutions rescinding
the existing resolution regulating parking and authorizing the installation of bus parking
restrictions along the south side of 41st Street West, as requested by school staff.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Mark Hanson for Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Traffic Study Number 622: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions at 4801 41st Street W
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RES. NO. 90-79 AND AUTHORIZING
INSTALLATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS ALONG
41ST STREET WEST BETWEEN NATCHEZ AND QUENTIN AVENUES
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 622
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that the following traffic controls meet the requirements of the City’s policy for
installation of Stop signs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 90-79 be rescinded.
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. Along the north side of 41st Street West between Quentin and Natchez Avenues:
a. Parking by permit only Monday through Friday EXCEPT 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
2. Along the south side of 41st Street West between Quentin and Natchez Avenues:
a. Along 4841 and 4829 – Parking by permit only Monday through Friday EXCEPT
8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
b. Along Susan Lindgren School Property:
i. “No Parking” along the westerly 215 feet.
ii. “Bus Parking Only” from 215 feet east of the west property line to a point 90
feet to the east.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2010
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Traffic Study No. 622: Parking Restrictions at Susan Lindgren School
Existing "No Parking" Restrictions
Existing "Permit Parking Only" Restrictions
Proposed "Bus Parking Only" Restrictions41st Street West
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Traffic Study No. 622: Authorize Installation of Parking Restrictions at 4801 41st Street W Page 3
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 99-09, 36th Street Streetscape Project – Project 2008-2600.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 99-09, 36th Street Streetscape Project –
Project 2008-2600.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any questions related to this Change Order?
BACKGROUND:
On August 17, 2009, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $614,316.30 to
Thomas and Sons Construction for the 36th Street Streetscape Project – Project No. 2008-2600.
Change Order No. 1, which provided for additional concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter
replacement work in the amount of $65,797.70, was subsequently approved by Council on
September 8, 2009.
Change Order No. 2 amounting to $35,482.92 includes several items necessary to substantially
complete the project. These include adjustments and modifications to retaining walls, sanitary
sewer, signal loop detectors, and lighting. Additional quantities of excavation and replacement
of material with structural soils were also determined to be necessary in planting bed and
landscaping areas.
The majority of this project is being funded through a Livable Communities Development
Account Grant by the Metropolitan Council. This grant was attained several years ago as part of
the Hoigaard Village area redevelopment project. The 36th Street Streetscape Project and 36th
Street Bridge Enhancement Projects were subsequently determined to be feasible with the grant
funds remaining.
All available Livable Communities grant monies must be expended by the end of this calendar
year or the City will relinquish any remaining amounts. It is estimated that 50 percent of the
Change Order No. 2 costs are covered under the grant. Other costs will be funded under
Elmwood TIF monies consistent with other contract expenditures under this contract. It is
therefore recommended that Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $35,482.92 be authorized.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Estimated Contract Cost
The work to be performed by the Contractor under Contract 99-09 is now estimated as follows:
Original Contract $614,316.30
Change Order No. 1 $65,797.70
Change Order No. 2 $35,482.92
Total $ 715,596.92
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Change Order No. 2 to Contract 099-09 – 36th Street Streetscape Project - Project No. 2008-2600
Contract Terms
All other terms of the Contract will remain the same.
Funding Sources
The revised total amount of $715,596.92 for the 36th Street Streetscape Project combined with
the contract cost of the 36th Street Bridge Enhancement Project ($181,965.77) is $897,562.69.
This amount, combined with engineering and administrative costs still falls well within the
original budgeted estimates for both projects as follows:
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachment: Change Order No. 2
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Meg McMonigal, Planning/Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Livable Communities Grant $832,000
Elmwood TIF $560,500
Total Available $ 1,392,500
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Phone: 952-924-2500 Fax: 952-924-2663
Contract No.:
Change Order No.: 2 Date:September 16, 2010
Project Name: West 36th Street Streetscape
Project Location: West 36th Street between Wooddale Avenue and Highway 100
Contractor: Thomas and Sons Construction 13925 Northdale Boulevard
Rogers, MN Phone No.763-428-2229
Type of Work: Additional work including re-locate flag pole, common excavation for 12” planter soil, sidewalks and
parking bays, structural soil for street trees, sanitary sewer repair, additional railing, replace loop
detectors at Wooddale Ave., modify electrical cabinet for lighting, reconstruct a portion of the B2B
Segway patio, upgraded irrigation enclosure, patching stucco adjacent to modular block walls and
one additional bike rack adjacent to Hoigaard Village.
Amount of Original Contract: $614,316.30
Description of Work to be Increased:
Unit Contract Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Re-locate Flag Pole Each $750.00 0 $0.00 1 $750.00
Common Excavation Cu. Yd. $19.60 0 $0.00 593 $11,622.90
Structural Soil Ton $96.00 0 $0.00 63.26 $6,072.96
Sanitary Sewer Repair Lump Sum $1,203.26 0 $0.00 1 $1,203.26
Oliver Press Stairwell
Railing Lump Sum $2,593.75 0 $0.00 1 $2,593.75
Install Loop Detectors Lump Sum $2,563.00 0 $0.00 1 $2,563.00
Modify Lighting Cabinet Lump Sum $550.00 0 $0.00 1 $550.00
B2B Segway Patio Work Lump Sum $5,500.00 0 $0.00 1 $5,500.00
Irrigation Enclosure Upgrade Lump Sum $547.53 0 $0.00 1 $547.53
Stucco Repair Lump Sum $3,566.20 0 $0.00 1 $3,566.20
Dero Bike Rack Each $513.32 0 $0.00 1 $513.32
Total Revised Quantity $35,482.92
Total Change Order No. 2 Amount: $35,482.92
Original Contract Price: $ 614,316.30
Previous Change Orders $65,797.70
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $ 715,596.92
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Change Order No. 2 to Contract 099-09 - 36th Street Streetscape Project - Project No. 2008-2600 Page 3
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Change Order No. 2 to Contract 099-09 - 36th Street Streetscape Project - Project No. 2008-2600 Page 4
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Appointment to Southwest Corridor Management Committee (SWCMC).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to appoint Mayor Jeff Jacobs to serve as the St. Louis Park representative on the
Southwest Corridor Management Committee.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Who would the City Council desire to have sit as the City’s representative on the Southwest
Corridor Management Committee?
BACKGROUND:
Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell has asked the Mayor to serve on the Southwest Corridor
Management Committee (SWCMC) representing the City of St. Louis Park (see attached letter).
The Committee will be the key policy advisory committee throughout the SWLRT project
implementation. The preliminary design process for the project is expected to begin in early
2011 and the SWCMC is now being formed.
The creation and structure of a corridor management committee is called for in state statute. The
committee will include representation from all the cities in the SWLRT corridor, two Hennepin
County Commissioners and the Metropolitan Council Chair among others. The anticipated
complete make up of the committee is shown in the attached organization chart and proposed
membership list.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Participation in the SWCMC and participation in the SWLRT project is consistent with the
City’s vision of being a community that offers a variety of transportation modes that is connected
and engaged.
Attachments: October 8, 2010 Letter to Mayor Jeff Jacobs
Organizational Chart
SWLRT Corridor Management Committee Suggested Membership
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Appointment to Southwest Corridor Management Committee (SWCMC)
Page 2
Southwest Corridor Management Committee - SWCMCBusiness Advisory Committee - BACSouthwest Project Office SWPOCommunity Advisory Committee - CACCommunications Land Use AdvisoryProject AdvisoryRisk ManagementSteering Committee -CSCLand Use Advisory Committee - LUACProject Advisory Committee - PACRisk Management Advisory Committee -RMACCity Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Appointment to Southwest Corridor Management Committee (SWCMC) Page 3
Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee Suggested Membership• Metropolitan Council Member (Chair)• Hennepin County Commissioner• City of Minnetonka • City of Eden Prairie• Hennepin County Commissioner• Metro Transit General Manager• City of Edina• Commissioner of Transportation• City of Minneapolis• City of St. Louis Park•City of Hopkins• Commissioner of MN Management and Budget• Community Advisory Committee•City of Hopkins• Business Advisory CommitteeCity Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Appointment to Southwest Corridor Management Committee (SWCMC) Page 4
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to purchase vacant MnDOT land and approve the purchase agreement for re-conveyance
of said vacant MnDOT land to Namakan Properties, LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to facilitate the conveyance of excess vacant MnDOT land to
Namakan Properties, LLC, owner of private property at 8225 State Highway 7?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The parcel owned by Namakan Properties is located on the southeast quadrant of State Highway
7 and Blake Road. The property is improved with a small retail building that is currently
occupied with Carpet King and The Little Gym. The building also has a vacant tenant space that
cannot be leased due to insufficient parking. There is a considerable amount of excess MnDOT
right-of-way adjacent to the mall, and Namakan Properties would like to purchase some of the
land to expand the parking lot, which would enable them to lease the remaining tenant space.
Process for Re-conveyance of MnDOT Land:
State law requires the sale of MnDOT land to be conveyed through the city. The process is for
MnDOT to sell the land to the city, and the city would sell it to Namakan Properties. The
transactions are set up to be simultaneous, so the city would own the land for only a moment.
All costs associated with the sale of the land would be paid by Namakan, including city staff
time.
City Council approval is required to sell the land. Therefore, the City Attorney prepared the
attached purchase agreement between the city and Namakan Properties for the City Council to
consider. The agreement includes an indemnification clause holding the city harmless in the
event expenses are incurred by the buyer resulting from the condition of the property. Approval
of the agreement would authorize staff to sell the land to Namakan Properties, and it would
require Namakan Properties to pay all expenses associated with the transaction. The purchase
price of the MnDOT land is $44,500. An additional $1,000 would be paid by Namakan
Properties to cover city expenses.
BACKGROUND:
MnDOT Review:
Namakan Properties first expressed an interest in the MnDOT land early in 2009. At the time,
MnDOT was beginning a reconstruction of the Highway 7/Blake Road intersection, so the
request was deferred until the improvements were completed (October of 2009). At the
conclusion of the project, MnDOT determined there was excess land that could be sold, and the
process was initiated. MnDOT determined it only needed approximately 15 feet from the edge
of Blake Road and the Highway 7 frontage road, and was willing to convey the remaining land.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
City Review:
Staff reviewed the proposal and determined that more than 15 feet of right-of-way between the
Namakan Property and Blake Road should be preserved. While the MnDOT improvements
alleviated some visibility and safety issues at the Highway 7/Blake Road intersection; the
intersection is still congested. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that additional intersection
improvements will be needed in the future. In addition to the potential for future intersection
improvements, the city also owns a monument sign in the right-of-way MnDOT determined to
be excess, and that land should not be sold.
Staff recommended that a significant portion of the right-of-way be kept at the intersection, and
that the remaining right-of-way adjacent to the new cul-de-sac be vacated. (See Exhibit) This
gives the city and MnDOT sufficient space for future intersection improvements, it keeps the city
monument in the public right-of-way, and the right-of-way proposed to be vacated is sufficient in
size to give Namakan Properties the number of parking spaces needed to lease the remaining
tenant space in the mall. The recommendation was accepted by MnDOT and Namakan
Properties.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The re-conveyance of MnDOT land would place more land in the private sector, and increase the
city tax base at no cost to the city.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Site Map
Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Subject: Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
SITE MAP
153215v2 1
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This Agreement made and entered into this __ day of , 2010, by and
between the City of St. Louis Park, ("Seller") and Namakan Properties, LLC ("Buyer").
Whereas, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained
and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by Buyer to the Seller as more fully set
forth below, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the Seller, it is
hereby agreed as follows:
1. Sale of Property. Seller agrees to execute and deliver to Buyer a quit claim deed to
that certain tract or parcel of land located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota
(hereinafter collectively called the "Subject Property") as legally described on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
2. Purchase Price and Manner of Payment. The total purchase price ("Purchase
Price") to be paid by Buyer to the Seller in exchange for the quit claim deed shall be Forty-four
Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100s Dollars ($44,500.00) payable in cash or certified funds at
closing. In addition to the purchase price, Buyer shall reimburse Seller’s attorney fees and
closing costs incurred in connection with this transaction, but in no event shall such
reimbursement exceed $1,000.00. Purchase money shall be held in escrow for the Buyer’s
benefit pending Seller’s confirmation of funds, whereupon Seller shall acquire the Subject
Property from the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Upon Seller’s
acquisition of the Subject Property from MnDOT and Seller’s tender of the quit claim deed to
Buyer, Buyer shall not under any circumstances be entitled to a return of the Purchase Price.
3. DATE AND PLACE OF CLOSING. The date for the closing of the sale shall be
on or before August 13, 2010, or on such other date as the parties mutually agree at a location
on which the parties can mutually agree. Possession will be delivered at closing. Upon receipt
of the quit claim deed from the State of Minnesota, the Seller shall execute and deliver to Buyer
a quit claim deed to the Subject Property, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
4. SELLER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Seller is
acting solely as a conduit for the conveyance of the Subject Property by quit claim deed
between MnDOT and Buyer and makes no representation as to the physical condition of or title
to the Subject Property.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF BUYER. The Buyer acknowledges that it has been
granted access to the Subject Property, has inspected the Subject Property to the extent
deemed necessary and desirable and by consummating the transaction hereby contemplated
Buyer shall be deemed to be satisfied with the condition thereof. Buyer agrees and represents
that Buyer is purchasing the Subject Property and will accept the Subject Property “as-is” as
existed at the time of execution and delivery of this Agreement subject to reasonable wear and
tear and consequences of natural hazards beyond the Seller’s control, without covenant,
representations or warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, those of
merchantability, habitability or fitness for a particular purpose. Buyer also acknowledges that
prior to execution of this Agreement it has satisfied itself as to title to the Subject Property.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land Page 4
153215v2 2
6. INDEMNIFICATION. Buyer will indemnify and hold Seller harmless from any
expenses or damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees, that Seller incurs as a result of any
claim by a third party relating to the condition of the Subject Property, including any claim
pursuant to state or federal law relating to the cleanup of hazardous or other regulated
substances.
7. DEED. Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to execute and deliver a
quit claim deed conveying title.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.
SELLER: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
By:
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
BUYER: NAMAKAN PROPERTIES, LLC
By:
William T. Bailey, Chief Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land Page 5
153215v2 3
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land Page 6
153215v2 4
EXHIBIT “B”
TO
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(Reserved for Recording Data)
____________________________________________________________________________
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $______
Dated:___________________________, 2010
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, Grantor, hereby conveys and quit claims to the NAMAKAN
PROPERTIES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Grantee, real property in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, legally described as follows:
See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following
exceptions: None
THE GRANTOR CERTIFIES THAT THE GRANTOR DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY WELLS ON THE DESCRIBED
REAL PROPERTY.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
By:
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land Page 7
153215v2 5
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _________ day of
_____________________, 2010, by Jeffrey W. Jacobs and Thomas K. Harmening, respectively
the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on
its behalf.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Tax Statements for the real property
described in this instrument should be sent to:
Namakan Properties, LLC
1815 West River Road
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
651-452-5000
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land Page 8
153215v2 6
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
QUIT CLAIM DEED
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land Page 9
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4j
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period October 30, 2010 through November 5,
2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
840.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
840.00
14.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
14.40
31.95STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
31.95
1,508.38GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
1,508.38
4,004.31TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEACS FIREHOUSE SOFTWARE
4,004.31
1,269.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYACTION FLEET INC
1,269.47
1,494.44OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESALEX AIR APPARATUS INC
1,494.44
447.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
447.00
133.60GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
74.15PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
44.36PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
53.44ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
47.81VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
30.63WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
30.63SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
5.11STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
419.73
20.10-IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,073.88SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,053.78
357.80MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGSAPPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS
357.80
328.08ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 2
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
328.08
1,384.67PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
1,384.67
2,591.68WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
792.70WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,384.38
58.13FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBANKER'S EQUIPMENT SERVICE INC
58.13
2,045.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARR ENGINEERING CO
9,221.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
11,267.00
97.83WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
97.83
6.30WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC
6.30
65.72WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBLACK RIVER BLUFF PROPERTIES
65.72
10,000.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH PREPAID EXPENSESBNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
2,000.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,000.00
19.04OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
19.04
14,234.20GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
14,234.20
7,754.53PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
7,754.53
1,130.74IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
1,130.74
208.57EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 3
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
208.57
739.94TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
739.94
87.02FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
87.02
10,200.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,200.00
60.12GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
60.12
2.74-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
21.35IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
21.26SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
2.95FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
79.90INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
122.72
218.30EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSCOLLECTION SERVICES CENTER
218.30
159.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
159.95
726.24ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECUMMINS NPOWER LLC
726.24
21.38PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM AIR DUCTS BY RICK LLC
21.38
4,623.67WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
4,623.67
652.92BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
652.92
267.00ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
267.00
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 4
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
37,538.75GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESDLR GROUP KKE
37,538.75
1,600.63SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
1,600.63
228.43REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALSDUNDEE NURSERY
228.43
882.04ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
882.04
5,290.00SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEARTH WIZARDS INC
5,290.00
1,667.58BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESECOLAB INC
1,667.58
52.80SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSELECTRIC PUMP INC
52.80
1,307.68ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSELECTRICAL MECHANICAL SERVICES
1,307.68
2,505.11GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
2,505.11
431.48PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
431.48
26.93HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIESFEINBERG, GREG
26.93
3,187.45GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
9.65POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,197.10
4,090.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRIEDGES LANDSCAPING INC
4,090.00
530.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGGLACKEN & ASSOCIATES
530.00
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 5
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
927.33WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
927.33
209.48WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
209.48
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
8,090.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
8,090.00
1,431.91PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYH & L MESABI
1,431.91
125.00PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESH2O WASH SYSTEMS LLC
125.00
315.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHACHEM, DRISS
315.00
45.00POLICE G & A TRAININGHARCEY, MICHAEL
45.00
5,607.17WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
5,607.17
437.30IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
437.30
4,487.20MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY SENTENCING TO
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,487.20
3,684.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
3,684.00
209.13FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
142.74PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
180.54PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 6
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
532.41
267.19GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
267.19
1,721.09OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESINFINITY WIRELESS
1,721.09
2,159.75GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESINSPEC INC
2,159.75
2,421.78IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,421.78
9,650.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJOE'S SEWER SERVICE INC
9,650.00
325.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SUSAN
325.00
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
361.93PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYKOVATCH MOBILE EQUIPMENT CORP
23.28-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
338.65
6,375.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESKRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO
6,375.00
25.41WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSKURUMBU, HENRY
25.41
4,440.65TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTLAUREL TREE FARMS
4,440.65
442.02HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIESLITIN PAPER, PACKAGING & CONVE
442.02
40,977.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
50.00SUPPORT SERVICES G&A COMPUTER SERVICES
17,022.46TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 7
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
58,049.46
289.95PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLOWELL'S REFINISH MASTERS
289.95
2,554.06PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
2,554.06
2,670.00WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMANAGED SERVICES INC
2,670.00
215.00LIFEGUARDINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMARTINSON, LISA
215.00
40.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMEHA
40.00
26.59WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
293.21HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
319.80
15.56WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMERRILL, ROB
15.56
400.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMETRO CHIEF FIRE OFFICERS ASSN
400.00
212.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
212.00
16,119.47REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
16,119.47
39.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMHA
39.00
6,759.39SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
386.64PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
663.96STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
7,809.99
725.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 8
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
725.00
145.24EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
145.24
1,201.37EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,201.37
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
880.86SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
880.86
495.83PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
52.96GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
548.79
35.79BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESNEP CORP
35.79
194.80TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE
194.80
137.73SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOFFICE DEPOT
43.76ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
56.58FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,101.37OFFICE EQUIP MTCE OFFICE SUPPLIES
30.12POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
16.86POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.99PATROLOFFICE SUPPLIES
157.62INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
179.18ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,734.21
1,289.08PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
1,289.08
350.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARTY UNIT
350.00
172.07PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 9
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
172.07
5,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
5,500.00
2,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPRUETER, STEVE
2,000.00
104.80IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
104.80
2,173.65FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
980.30REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
95.55WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
893.80SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,143.30
35.27WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
35.27SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
35.27SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
35.27STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
141.08
156.92WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSRODGERS, DAVID
156.92
1,031.26PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
1,031.26
1,008.39GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSERIGRAPHICS SIGN SYSTEMS INC
1,008.39
185.07REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSISLO, WILLIAM & STEPHANIE
185.07
17.50YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUESLAUGHTER, NICOLE
17.50
16.80HALLOWEEN PARTY PROGRAM REVENUESNOW, KRIS
16.80
1,456.00IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 10
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,456.00
165.04GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESTANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY SO
165.04
193.07PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTREICHER'S
193.07
472.00SOLID WASTE G&A ADVERTISINGSUN NEWSPAPERS
472.00
46.55POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
4.76SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
51.31
54.71GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESTERMINIX INT
54.71
7,600.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTESTAMERICA LABORATORIES INC
7,600.00
448.80SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
448.80
601.81GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETRI STATE BOBCAT
601.81
4,097.87PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
4,097.87
143.00OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEUHL CO INC
143.00
191.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
191.00
31.06WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
31.06
121,144.30CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC
121,144.30
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 11
11/4/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:32:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
11/5/2010 -10/30/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
38.62AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESVALLEY VIEW ASSOC
38.62
1,243.86VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
1,243.86
577.13WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
577.13
10,653.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWEBER ELECTRIC
10,653.00
12.99-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSWEED WRENCH CO
201.99REFORESTATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
189.00
95.48MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGSWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
95.48
13,334.73ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
24.44GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
13,359.17
16.10PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
16.10PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.09VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.10WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
64.39
50.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
50.00
Report Totals 472,796.74
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 4j)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 12
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing for Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Liquor Barrel.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve off-sale intoxicating liquor license to MM
Liquor Barrel Inc. dba Liquor Barrel located at 5111 Excelsior Blvd in St. Louis Park for the
license term through March 1, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the off-sale intoxicating liquor license to the new ownership of
the Liquor Barrel for the license term through March 1, 2011?
BACKGROUND:
The City received an application from MM Liquor Barrel Inc. for an off-sale intoxicating liquor
license for the Liquor Barrel currently under operation at 5111 Excelsior Blvd. The new owners
are: Kent Cich and Jeremiah Cich. They also own and operate a second Liquor Barrel in Circle
Pines, Minnesota. Liquor Barrel will retain five current employees and will not make structural
changes or alterations to the store.
As required in Section 3-66 of the City Code of Ordinance, a public hearing is required for the
issuance of a license for a difference licensee at the same premises.
The Police Department conducted a background investigation and has found no reason to deny
the new ownership based on the investigation. The application and Police report are on file in
the City Clerk’s Office should Councilmembers wish to review the information prior to the
Public Hearing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The investigation fee for a new liquor licenses is $500.00. The fee for an off-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses is $380 (prorated).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing - 2011 Liquor License Fees.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve Resolution adopting 2011 liquor license fees
for the license term March 1, 2011 through March 1, 2012 pursuant to M.S.A. Ch. 340A and
section 3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the proposed increase in certain liquor license fees for 2011?
BACKGROUND:
Staff recently completed the 2010 fee study and, based on this analysis, staff is recommending
changes to 2011 liquor license fees. State law requires that the city adopt liquor license fees at a
public hearing and city ordinance permits the Council to set liquor license fees by resolution.
The following is a list of the 2010 liquor license fees and proposed fees for 2011. These
proposed fees have been reviewed by the Department Director and the City Manager; and reflect
the limits set forth in state law and increased costs of providing license administration and
enforcement.
Liquor License Type 2010 Fee 2011 Fee
Effective 3/1/2011
Brewer Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $150 $150
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $150 $150
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280 $280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,000 $8,500
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200
On-sale Wine $2,000 $2,000
Club (per members) 1 - 200 $300 $300
201 - 500 $500 $500
501 - 1000 $650 $650
1001 - 2000 $800 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000 $3,000
Temporary Liquor License $100/day $100/day
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Public Hearing - 2011 Liquor License Fees
Background
Investigation Fees:
2010 Fee 2011 Fee
New License
Applicant
(non-refundable)
500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-state
applicant may be billed up
to a maximum of $10,000.
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-state
applicant may be billed up to
a maximum of $10,000.
New Store Manager $500 $500
On-sale license
renewal per 340A.412
Subd. 2
$500 $500
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
State law sets the limits on what fees may be charged for certain types of liquor licenses. Where
there is no state restriction, the city can set the fee at an amount to reflect the cost of issuing the
license and other costs directly related to the enforcement. License fees may not be used as a
means of raising revenues.
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor Fee Increase
The city currently has 18 intoxicating liquor license holders in the city. The 2010 fee for an on-
sale intoxicating liquor license is $8,000. Staff proposes increasing this fee to $8,500 to cover
the staff time and resources that are required for license administration and enforcement,
including compliance checks. The 2009 fee was $7,500 which had not been increased since
2001. In 2009 staff proposed this fee be increased by $500 in 2010 and $500 in 2011. The 2011
fee of $8,500 reflects this change.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
Attachments: 2010 Liquor License Establishment by License Type
Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Public Hearing - 2011 Liquor License Fees
2010 Liquor License Establishments License Types
License Establishment Brewer
Off-sale
Brewpub
Off-sale
3.2
Off-sale
3.2
On-sale
Intox
On-sale
Sunday
On-sale
Intox
Off-sale
Wine
On-
sale
Club
On-
sale
License Issued by: City City City City City City State State State
American Legion-Frank L 200 500
Applebee's Grill Bar 8000 200
Best of India 750 2000
Bunny’s 8000 200
Byerly’s St. Louis Park 8000 200
Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 380
Chili’s Southwest Grill 8000 200
Chipotle Mexican Grill 750 2000
Cooper Irish Pub 8000 200
Costco Wholesale #377 380
Crave 8000 200
Cub Foods Knollwood 150
Doubletree Park Place 8000 200
Fuddruckers 750 2000
Grand City Buffet Inc 750 2000
Granite City Food & Brew 150 8000 200
Homeward Suites 750
Jennings’ Liquor Store 380
Kerasotes Theatres 8000 200
Knollwood Liquor 380
Liquor Barrel, Inc. 380
Marriott Mpls West 8000 200
McCoy’s Public House 8000 200
Minneapolis Golf Club 200 500
Noodle & Company 750 2000
Olive Garden #1424 8000 200
Park Tavern Lounge 8000 200
Pei Wei Asian Diner 750 2000
Rainbow Foods 150 380
Ringo 8000 200
Rojo Mexican Grill 8000 200
Sam’s Club #6318 150 380
St. Louis Park Liquors 380
Target Corporation 150
Taste of India 750 2000
Texas-Tonka Liquors 380
Texa-Tonka Lanes 8000 200
TGI Friday’s 8000 200
Thanh do Restaurant 750 2000
The Four Firkins 380
Toby Keith I Love this Bar 8000 200
Trader Joe’s 380
Vescio's Cucina 750 2000
Vintage Wine & Spiritz 380
Westwood Liquors 380
Wok in the Park 750 2000
Yangtze River Rest. 8000 200
Yum, Inc. 750 2000
TOTALS 0 150 600 9,000 152,000 4,200 4,940 22,000 1,000
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Public Hearing - 2011 Liquor License Fees
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2011 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES
FOR THE LICENSE TERM
MARCH 1, 2011 – MARCH 1, 2012
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the City Council to
establish annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in
M.S.A. Chapter 340A; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain fees in an amount necessary to cover
the cost of administration and enforcement of regulating liquor in the city; and
WHEREAS, fees called for within the Section 3-59 of the City Code and Minnesota State
Statute Chapter 340A are hereby set by this resolution for the 2011 license term effective March
1, 2011 through March 1, 2012; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, fees for 2011 liquor licenses are hereby adopted as follows:
Liquor License Type: 2011 Fee
Effective 3/1/2011
Brewer Off-sale Malt Liquor $200
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $150
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $150
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,500
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200
On-sale Wine $2,000
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Temporary On-sale Liquor $100/day
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Public Hearing - 2011 Liquor License Fees
Background Investigation Fee
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in-state
applicant;
actual costs for out-
of-state applicant
may be billed up to a
maximum of $10,000.
New Store Manager $500
On-sale license renewal
per 340A.412 Subd. 2
$500
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution granting approval of the Preliminary Plat of Eldridge 1st Addition,
with conditions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the proposed plan for the Eldridge 1st Addition subdivision satisfy the requirements for
approval of a Preliminary Plat?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a Preliminary Plat to allow for the subdivision of a single parcel into five (5) new
lots. The proposed lots and subdivision meet all zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements.
The existing parcel at 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard, located on the south side of Minnetonka
Boulevard near Cobblecrest Lake, is 1.99 acres in size and has an existing house and garage. The
existing structures would be removed and a new public street connecting to Minnetonka
Boulevard would be constructed on the east side of the site. The new homes would be between
2,500 square feet and 4,000 square feet in size. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the subdivision, subject to conditions, with a recommendation that a study be done to
move the road to the west.
Discussion:
The proposal for a subdivision involves a single existing parcel of land of 87,097 square feet in
size (about 1.99 acres) that would be subdivided into five lots ranging from 10,744 square feet to
20,669 square feet in size. Each proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet
and the minimum lot width requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. The minimum lot width
requirement in the R-1 Zoning District is 75 feet measured at the front yard setback; for corner
lots, the minimum width is 85 feet.
Public Process
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, September 28th. There were 12
neighbors in attendance. Concerns were raised about the proposed development, including the
loss of tree canopy in the neighborhood, construction and safety of a new public street, the
potential for change in the neighborhood’s character, and the exclusion of affordable homes in
the proposal.
At the Planning Commission public hearing, the issues above were further reviewed. Additional
issues raised included the potential for moving the entrance for the new public street from
Minnetonka Boulevard to Decatur Avenue South, concerns about the proposed public street
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
causing through-lots for the homeowners living on Cavell Avenue South, the location of the
street from the existing homes on Cavell Avenue, lighting and fencing along the new public
street, and the size and architectural type that could be used for the proposed houses.
Existing Lot: Characteristics
Location
The proposed subdivision is located south of Minnetonka Boulevard in the western part of the
City, and is fully within the Cobblecrest neighborhood. It is located just west of two subdivisions
approved in 2007, known as “Fretham 9th Addition” and “Isabelle Estates.”
Topography & Shape
The property is relatively flat, with a slight depression near the southwest corner. The location of
the low spot on the site has been taken into account by the applicant in designing the layout for
the subdivision, reflected in the analysis of stormwater management below. The property is
roughly rectangular in shape. This allows for a variety of potential layouts for housing on the
site, all requiring a new roadway to reach the southerly part of the lot. Early analysis by the
applicant indicated that the lot could accommodate up to seven homes without any variances; the
applicant has stated that only five lots are proposed to allow for larger lots and homes on the
development site.
Utilities
The subdivision proposal includes a new public street off the south side of Minnetonka
Boulevard between Cavell and Decatur Avenues. New utilities would be located in the street
right-of-way. The applicant intends to provide access to water via an existing 12-inch water main
in Minnetonka Boulevard. Sanitary sewer service would be provided via a new sanitary main
line that would connect to the main line, also located in Minnetonka Boulevard. The water and
sanitary sewer mains would be placed below the new street. All electrical, cable, phone and gas
utilities would be placed below ground, and would be located within the right-of-way for the new
public street.
Subdivision Analysis
As noted, the proposed subdivision meets the general conditions of the Zoning Ordinance related
to lot size and width. However, other issues addressed in the application are reviewed below.
Public Street Dedication
The Subdivision Ordinance requires applicants to provide a sketch plan for any subdivision
proposal to the City prior to submitting an application for Preliminary Plat. During the process of
reviewing the sketch plan, the Public Works Department determined that the number of lots
included in the proposal and the future maintenance needs for the street dictated that the new
street should be public, versus a private street that would be owned and maintained by a
homeowners association.
Dedication of a new public street is permitted under the regulations found in the Subdivision
Ordinance. The proposed name for the new public street is “Cobblecrest Court,” reflecting the
site’s alphabetical proximity to Cavell and Decatur Avenues along Minnetonka Boulevard and
the geographical proximity to Cobblecrest Lake.
The new public street must fit the street design requirements found in the Subdivision Ordinance.
The proposed street has 50-feet of right-of-way and a 29-foot paved section, meeting subdivision
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
ordinance standards. At the Planning Commission meeting, the motion recommending approval
of the item included a request that the City Engineer review the standards and consider a reduced
road width to allow for a higher level of screening between the new roadway and the properties
to the east. The City Engineer reviewed the standards and concluded that the standards for public
street width should be maintained. A memo from the City Engineer detailing this and other
issues is attached.
Minnetonka Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. For this reason, the City
Engineer will be working with the County Engineer to ensure that access and other issues
surrounding right-of-way permits and modifications to the trail along Minnetonka Boulevard are
addressed. The full cost of construction for the new public street, as well as any curb
modifications and replacement of the trail, would be paid by the developer.
Cul-de-sacs are permitted by the Subdivision Ordinance. In this case, the cul-de-sac is required
because of the physical site conditions related to how previous subdivisions were completed.
There is no means for access to the site except from Minnetonka Boulevard. If the applicant were
required by the City to access the site from Cavell or Decatur Avenue, a portion of an adjacent
lot would be needed. The Fire Department has reviewed and approved of the proposed design for
the cul-de-sac; one important provision was that a new fire hydrant be installed at the end of the
street.
Sidewalk
The Subdivision Ordinance requires the construction of sidewalk along all public streets with
access for all new homes. The requirement, which calls for a five-foot wide section of sidewalk,
allows for the sidewalk to be constructed in the right-of-way. In this case, the sidewalk would be
located on the west side of the proposed new street, “Cobblecrest Court,” to provide direct access
to the proposed homes.
The existing plans show the sidewalk terminating at Lot 3. A requirement has been added to the
conditions of approval to ensure that the plans are revised to extend the sidewalk to the driveway
serving Lot 5 in the subdivision.
Lot Shape & Building Placement
The Subdivision Ordinance includes recommendations for lot dimension and shape. The
proposed lots conform to the requirements. Three of the proposed lots are approximately 75’ by
148’ in size. The two lots at the end of the cul-de-sac are pie-shaped and substantially exceed
these minimum dimensions.
The applicant has included building pads for each site showing how the setback requirements of
the R-1 Zoning District could be met. The proposed homes would be of 3,000 to 4,000 square
feet, with a two or three car attached garage. At the time of application for a building permit, the
City will conduct a final review to ensure that the proposed structures meet the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, including the maximum lot coverage (Ground Floor Area Ratio) of 0.35.
Tree Replacement & Landscaping
The existing lot is heavily wooded. While much of the wooded area is comprised of scrub trees
or undergrowth, there are 55 significant trees on the site, comprising a total of 801 caliper inches
of total trees. The applicant intends to remove 19 significant trees, adding up to a total of 364
caliper inches. Using the Zoning Ordinance formula for tree replacement, a total of 139 caliper
inches of significant trees must be replaced.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
The Zoning Ordinance requirement for landscaping on lots dedicated for single family homes
calls for one new tree per lot, to be planted in the boulevard. The current application for
Preliminary Plat does not include a landscape plan because the landscaping requirement can
easily be met on each of the new lots. The applicant has indicated that he intends to plant the full
139 caliper inches of replacement trees over the entire site, using input from the neighborhood.
56 new 2.5 inch trees would fulfill the requirement for 139 caliper inches; a number of the
proposed trees will be located along both sides of the proposed public street. Two requirements
related to landscaping have been recommended as conditions of approval: 1) that a landscape
plan, developed in coordination with adjacent property owners, be completed before submittal of
the final plat application, and 2) that a Letter of Credit or Cash Escrow be provided prior to final
City approval of the Plat, to guarantee installation of all required landscaping.
The construction of a new public street does not result in screening requirements for adjacent
properties. At the Planning Commission meeting, several neighbors did indicate a preference for
a fence, and the applicant is willing to install one. The Planning Commissioners did not make
the installation of a fence a condition of the recommendation; however, such a condition has
been added to the resolution. Construction of the fence would be guided by a development
agreement between the City and the applicant.
Drainage and Utility Easements
The applicant has included the easements required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The new
easements allow for the placement of drainage and utilities between the properties. As required,
the easements are provided with 10’ for all exterior lot lines, and 5’ for all interior lot lines. In
addition, Hennepin County has requested an additional 15’ easement along Minnetonka
Boulevard that would allow for possible future roadway purposes; the City Engineer has
reviewed this requirement and concurs with the County, detailed in the attached memo.
Stormwater Management
The proposed stormwater management system meets the requirements of the City’s Surface
Water Management Plan. The stormwater within the site generally flows to the south, so the
developer has proposed a stormwater pond on the site’s southwest corner. In the event of a major
(100-year) storm, the proposed stormwater basin has an overflow pipe constructed that allows
water to flow to the north through a drainage swale toward Minnetonka Boulevard, where it
proceeds into Cobblecrest Lake. This drainage swale is for emergency overflow only, and needs
to be designed and constructed in a manner that will not resolute in standing water, or adverse
affects to neighboring properties.
Cobblecrest Lake drains to Minnehaha Creek through the City’s stormwater management
system. The following comments were provided by the City Engineer and have been
incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval:
1. Show how the bioretention basins fit into the locations where they are shown.
2. The side slopes on the bioretention basins should be indicated on the plans. Also indicate
how the slope ties into the back of the curb.
3. Emergency overflow to Minnetonka Boulevard should be shown on the plan.
Additional permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be required prior to
beginning construction on the site.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Park dedication / Trail dedication
Based on the goals found in the Comprehensive Plan, no new parks are planned for this area of
the City; therefore, the applicant intends to make a payment in lieu of park dedication. The park
dedication and trail dedication payments are due before the City releases the final Plat (currently
$1,500 park dedication per lot and $225 trail dedication per lot.
Summary:
The Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and also meets the
Zoning Ordinance requirements for the R-1 Zoning District.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision, subject to further review
of the setback/buffer area between the proposed street and the houses to the east. After review
by the City Engineer, it was determined that it was not possible to safely reduce the width of the
street. For this reason, an additional condition has been added to the resolution requiring that the
buffer area to the east of the proposed street be further refined and enhanced prior to submission
of the final plat.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed subdivision meets the vision goals for diverse housing options within the
community, and will add to the City’s stock of “move up” housing, which is consistent with the
housing goals adopted by the City Council.
Attachments: Resolution – Preliminary Plat
Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 6, 2010
City Engineer’s Report
Location map
Site plan and related exhibits
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ELDRIDGE 1ST ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Kay Blackmore, owner, and AKARE Companies, LLC, subdivider of the land
proposed to be platted as Eldridge 1st Addition have submitted an application for approval of
preliminary plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with
the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 18-117-21, described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the South line of Minnetonka Boulevard so-called,
distant 526 feet measured at right angles West from the East line of the said NW
1/4; thence South parallel to said East line a distance of 426.14 feet; thence at
right angles East 198.17 feet; thence North at right angles and parallel to the East
line of said a distance of 453.1 feet to the South line of said Minnetonka
Boulevard; thence Southwesterly along the said South line of said Boulevard 280
feet more or less; to the point of beginning, containing about 2 acres, all according
to Government survey.
4. On October 6, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of the
subdivision on a vote of 6-0 with one commissioner abstaining.
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary plat of Eldridge 1st Addition is hereby approved
and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City
plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota,
provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney
and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions:
a. Prior to submitting application for the Final Plat, the following conditions shall be
met:
i. Plans shall be revised to show the sidewalk extending to Lot 5.
ii. Plans shall be revised to provide for a six-foot privacy fence located between
the proposed public street “Cobblecrest Court,” and the properties to the east.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
iii. In coordination with the City Engineer, the buffer area located immediately
east of the proposed public street shall be widened and enhanced on the
official exhibits.
iv. Plans shall include a final landscape plan for all tree planting and tree
preservation planned for the site.
v. Detailed construction plans, per the requirements of the City Engineer, shall
be provided for the proposed public street and utilities.
vi. All conditions for stormwater management shall be met.
b. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
i. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
ii. A pre-development conference shall be held with the appropriate
development, construction and city representatives.
iii. All necessary permits must be obtained.
c. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
i. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
ii. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
iii. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
iv. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
v. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding
properties.
d. The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City to guarantee
the completion of all required improvements, both public and private.
e. Park dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat.
f. Trail dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat.
g. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of $1000 to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is
provided to the City.
h. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit
in the amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement, public improvements,
landscaping, repair/cleaning of public streets and utilities, and to guarantee the
provision of as-built drawings for all new public infrastructure to the City.
i. The applicant shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition
of this approval.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all
contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set
forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been
fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as
required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be
conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record
forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15,
2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 6, 2010 -- 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford (youth member), Claudia Johnston-
Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Adam Fulton, Nancy Sells
3. Hearings
A. Preliminary Plat – Eldridge 1st Addition
Location: 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard
Applicant: AKARE Companies, LLC (Rob Eldridge)
Case No.: 10-27-S
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report and noted this was for approval of a preliminary
plat only, to create five new lots to be called Cobblecrest Court. Some issues included this being
a new public street versus a private street with a cul-de-sac. There is a five foot wide sidewalk
proposed. Hennepin County had some concerns about the site distance, but the City Engineer
felt it met the requirements. Mr. Fulton stated that tree preservation was a critical issue for this
lot and buckthorn and grape vines would be removed. The applicant was proposing to replace
trees and 56 are required. The developer has indicated willingness to have neighborhood
involvement in developing the final landscape plan. Storm water management issues were taken
into consideration with installation of a pond and drainage swale.
Commissioner Robertson referred to a study session discussion on cluster housing and asked if
the possibility of cluster housing had been discussed with the applicant. He said there are
interesting lot shapes and that could potentially change screening and the road location or alter
the plan.
Mr. Fulton replied a policy decision was made to remove cluster housing from the R-1 Zoning
District in 2006, so that possibility was not discussed. He added that the proposed lot shapes are
typical of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Carper and Mr. Fulton discussed pad sites.
Mr. Fulton stated that this is a preliminary plat only, not review for a building permit or specific
house review or design. He added that the applicant was the builder of two houses in the
subdivision across the street and has indicated that the proposed houses will be similar to those
houses.
Commissioner Carper asked if there is any requirement to do a sidewalk on the northern portion
adjacent to Minnetonka Boulevard.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Mr. Fulton replied that there is already a trail in that location.
Commissioner Carper asked about sidewalk on the other side of the cul-de-sac adjacent to the
swale.
Mr. Fulton indicated the requirement doesn’t extend to that area because those houses front on
Cavell Ave. S. and have access to that street.
Commissioner Carper asked how the lot sizes compared to the adjacent existing homes and
surrounding blocks.
Mr. Fulton replied this had come up in the neighborhood meeting. The R-1 study that was
completed by the Planning Commission looked at the Cobblecrest neighborhood and other
neighborhoods. There are a number of larger lots. The adjacent lots to the proposed subdivision
are generally 10-13,000 square ft. lots and they are unusually shaped.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the street width from the cul-de-sac and asked where parking
would be allowed.
Mr. Fulton said the subdivision ordinance requires a 29 ft. street width. The Fire Marshall will
make the final determination as to which side parking will be allowed.
Commissioner Kramer asked about options regarding narrowness and street width.
Mr. Fulton said the applicant had not requested a variance to the subdivision ordinance
requirement. Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, added a street could possibly
be about 6-8 feet narrower.
Rob Eldridge, applicant, Ridge Creek Custom Homes, provided background on the company and
the development.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Bill Streetar, 3010 Cavell, stated his home is currently surrounded by asphalt and concrete on
two sides and with this development it would be completely surrounded on three sides. He asked
if the drainage swale would run on the east side of the street.
Mr. Fulton replied it would be an above-ground drainage swale and would not drain anywhere
but to Minnetonka Blvd. where it would travel into Cobblecrest Lake.
Mr. Streetar stated from his property line to the curb of the street is only ten feet. He said he felt
that was untenable for a residence. He stated he lived on this property for 46 ½ years and had
seen many changes. In 1973 the grade change took away two and a half feet of his street. He
believed there were already a lot of issues including noise pollution from Minnetonka Blvd,
heavy truck traffic, motorcycles, trespassing from the trail across his lot, and trash from the bus
stop. They have to live with that. Mr. Streetar said the proposed development would bring a lot
of light pollution from the street and it would be 20 feet from his back bedroom. He said he
didn’t want to live in a cave. He said he was also concerned about the saleability of his house as
the development would lower his home value. He said his home was his nest egg. Mr. Streetar
stated he would like a visual barrier from the development, some kind of tasteful fence.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Streetar if the street were to be pushed further to the west,
what distance would be workable?
Mr. Streetar replied there were ideas from the neighborhood that could make this more
neighborhood friendly. Having an entrance off of Cavell or Decatur would eliminate the
intersection directly with Minnetonka Blvd., which would make more sense for safety and
traffic.
Diane Harrison, 3021 Decatur, said she wanted to present alternatives to the architect’s plan.
She said the architect didn’t plan well putting the street where they did, saying that no one in
their right mind would put cement on three sides of someone’s land. It wasn’t fair. There are
other options. The original designer of the neighborhood made the lots long and thin and the
homes were put to the back side of the lots. She suggested one of the options that could have
been offered was for the neighbors to buy more land. Another option would be to bring the road
in from Decatur Av. and turn it up. They could flip it to put the big houses to the north side of the
lot and the smaller houses toward the south side of the lot. There would be no access from
Minnetonka Blvd. and no problems from a poor turn area and cause for accidents. They could
still have the turnaround and the builder could buy a small piece of the neighbor’s lot and put in
a fence, adding more trees and shrubbery. Because it would be a new house with good sound
insulation it would give Mr. Streetar land behind his home. Ms. Harrison said she didn’t feel the
plan presented was the best option for the neighborhood.
Kent Bowker, 3031 Decatur, stated his initial shock about the proposal had subsided. He said
about nine years ago when he bought his house, he didn’t think the proposed subdivision was a
buildable spot. He bought his house because of the existing environment. Mr. Bowker said in his
opinion, as a real estate agent, Bill Streetar’s and Jeremy Gustafson’s houses clearly will lose
value. He said all six of the homes will lose value because they will be losing their wooded oasis.
The new homes will be big two-story homes, lots of trees will be removed, and it will not be the
same environment. Mr. Bowker stated he didn’t see how they could allow a road to go in behind
those homes.
Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Bowker if he had any problems with the proposal of a new
roadway along the south side of his house.
Mr. Bowker replied it was alright because his garage was located there and he had a large side
yard.
Mike Pacello, 3060 Cavell, read a letter from Gail and Michael Mooers, 8920 W. 31st St, who
were unable to attend the meeting. The Mooers’ concerns regarded: the square footage of the
homes would look out of place, the homes were too big for the neighborhood; the setback from
the existing homes was too narrow which would impact privacy, security and saleability; the
removal of so many mature trees had a huge environmental impact on the neighborhood; and
five homes were too many for the land space available. The Mooers stated they were adamantly
opposed to putting five homes into that space and tired of subdivisions having to do with the
bottom line and more tax base for the city. They requested that the Commission not pass the
proposal as it stood.
Mr. Pacello asked when all this building will stop. He commented that space is good. The
neighborhood enjoys large lots and nice houses.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Briana Erickson, 3011 Decatur, quoted Mayor Jacobs from the St. Louis Park Community Guide,
“It is a place where people live starting out raising families or settling in for retirement. A
community of choice for a lifetime. Neighbors know each other and residents have real input
into decisions affecting the community.” Ms. Erickson said this was a prime of example of what
the neighborhood should have, and they should have a say. She said the development’s impact
on residential streets needed to be minimized. The extra traffic and parking would place an
unacceptable burden on the rest of the neighborhood. The new homes could be a lower scale in
keeping with the character of the community. Their homes are about half the size and one half to
one-third the price of the proposed homes. These are mansions going up in their back yard and it
altered the neighborhood feel. There would also be an environmental impact removing trees and
green space. Ms. Erickson stated that the new properties could potentially drive up their property
taxes and would make the area unaffordable. She concluded by saying allowing this to take
place was setting a dangerous precedence.
Jeremy Gustafson, 3020 Cavell, stated his largest concern was preserving a private backyard for
his kids. Having a street put in within ten feet of their property line would be only 6-7 steps to
the street. He said he appreciated the developer’s offer to build a fence.
Mark McDonnell, 2939 Cavell, stated he moved from his first house on Cavell to one of the new
houses across the street. They were starting their family and their first house was not big enough.
They were looking to leave the city, but they liked living here and they liked the school district.
Mr. Eldridge was the builder of their new home. Mr. McDonnell said they couldn’t be happier
with their new home and assumed the new houses would be similar to it. Mr. McDonnell said
Mr. Eldridge would probably be able to work with the residents better than any builder he had
come into contact with.
James Campbell, 8806 Minnetonka, asked how runoff into Cobblecrest Lake would affect the
lake.
Mr. Fulton replied that runoff currently goes to Cobblecrest Lake and the new development
wouldn’t change the current conditions. The applicant is required to not release any additional
water above and beyond what the site currently releases. He explained that all of the water from
Cavell and Decatur streets flows to the north toward Cobblecrest Lake. It then outlets to a man-
made structure that regulates the water level of the lake and then it outlets to Minnehaha Creek.
An email from Jo Colleran, 8810 Minnetonka Blvd., was distributed to the Planning
Commission. Her comments included support of 5 lots versus 7 lots. She appreciated the road
alignment as proposed. If it was moved to the west, car lights as exiting onto Mtka. Blvd. would
point directly at her home. She said she appreciates the attempt to infiltrate as much storm water
runoff as possible. She suggested the roadway could be narrower to allow for less storm water
runoff. Ms. Colleran supported removal of buckthorn and grape vine. She said she was
concerned about how the final grading may impact the critical root zone of some of the trees he
proposes to save. Ms. Colleran stated she was concerned about the view and landscaping. She
said she spoke with the developer about using native trees and shrubbery to create a layered
woodland effect versus a berm with evergreens. She provided details about how a rain garden on
lot 1 could be planted with native trees and shrubs in order to help accomplish an aesthetic
woodland view.
Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Commissioner Carper noted one of the speakers brought up the concept of a fence to separate the
road from the homes to the east. He asked if that can be made a condition of approval.
Chair Person asked if a berm would be workable.
Mr. Fulton replied there would be a slight berm at the corner of Minnetonka and the new street.
A berm was not possible on the east side of the new proposed street because that was where the
drainage swale was proposed to be located. Mr. Fulton stated that the applicant has said he
would be willing to put in a fence, but that his preference was not to put in a fence because he
didn’t feel a fence made good neighbors. If the neighbors felt it was necessary, that condition
would be perfectly acceptable.
Commissioner Morris said a fence would make good neighbors in this case and it was
compelling for the safety of the children. The dry pond could fill with water a few times a year
and children could be drawn to it. He said he would advocate that a fence would be a good visual
separation from the roadway for the property owners on the east and would also be good for
safety.
Commissioner Kramer asked how close someone could put the back of their house to the lot line.
Mr. Fulton replied the rear yard setback is 25 feet for the R-1 district.
Commissioner Kramer asked why houses along Cavell would be forced into a minimum lot
backyard. He asked why the street is so far to the east and why couldn’t it be moved to the west,
making the backyards of the new developments smaller.
Mr. Fulton replied that the first proposal they reviewed for this was 7 lots with a cul-de-sac that
came down right in the middle. It looked like it conformed to the Zoning Code. The developer
has stated by putting a road in the proposed location, it allows them to accomplish a development
at a slightly lower density while meeting the City’s requirements for storm water and road
regulations. He added that was not to say the road couldn’t be moved.
Commissioner Robertson said the proposal will make Cavell lots become thru-lots. Typically
the 25-ft rear yard setback was a rear yard to a rear yard setting. The proposal was an odd
situation. Cars would be too close to the backyards and he was not comfortable with the street
being as far to the east as it was. Problems could be avoided with more buffer, width and
addition of a fence. He said there had already been a lot of public input on this site through the
zoning process and through the Comprehensive Plan. It could be developed more intensely. The
R-1 district can have 9,000 sq. ft. lots. The development meets the needs for more large single
family homes. Commissioner Robertson stated it was a good development scale-wise. He said he
appreciated that it was for five houses instead of seven houses. He said the public street needed
to be pushed further from the backyards of the houses on Cavell. He commented that residents
say this would lower the value of their homes, but they don’t have control on the other side of
their property line. The street encroaches too much on people’s private backyards. He suggested
it can be rearranged and not lose anything in the process.
Chair Person asked about street light locations.
Mr. Fulton responded that street light locations had not been determined. The conditions and
locations would be reviewed by the Police Department.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Commissioner Robertson asked the developer to comment on flipping the street location.
Rob Eldridge, applicant, stated when they studied the site with their engineers they looked at
different road layouts. It was generally a flat lot but not a flat neighborhood. The idea of
flipping the road to go through Mr. Bowker’s area would require them to build it up eight feet,
which would take out everything in the woods in the back side of the property. He explained
when they looked at this, the road on the east side worked out best because if they went to the
other side to meet City standards they would have to do more grading. This could be discussed
as part of the final plat. He said they tried to entertain other ideas and didn’t know that Mr.
Bowker's land was available to do this.
Chair Person asked about the height of the foundations above the new street.
Mr. Eldridge was unsure what the foundations were for the new street, but the foundations to his
yard were about two-feet higher. It was a significant amount. They were open to the idea of
putting a fence down that side. He said at one point he hoped to do a private road, making the
road smaller and keeping it 15-20 feet from the side yard. He said when you start putting in a
50-foot wide road and try holding it off another 10-15 feet, it would shove the houses onto the
other properties and affect both sides of the neighborhood. He liked the idea of one-sided
parking and getting rid of eight feet of asphalt. It would probably change the drainage issues and
give them other ideas to explore. Mr. Eldridge concluded by saying this is why they were doing
the preliminary plat because there were issues to be worked out and discussed.
Commissioner Morris asked about Hennepin County and City Engineer comments on the road
configuration.
Mr. Fulton replied that Hennepin County had some questions about the layout. The City
Engineer, Scott Brink, believes it should be a public street and believed it was safe. He did
additional review as requested by Hennepin County. The county looks for 500 ft. stopping
distance visually in both directions and they found that to be present on both the east and the
west of the proposed road.
Commissioner Morris asked if the road location needed to be changed, or did it just need to be
tweaked. He said his concern was if they moved ahead with preliminary and found out the road
needed to be moved which changed the lot configuration, other options might then be available.
The Commission would only see it on the final plat at that point.
Mr. Fulton stated that the City Engineer did not believe the road location needed to be changed.
Commissioner Morris noted that in flipping the roadway and the cul-de-sac around, the cul-de-
sac would be up against somebody’s backyard no matter how it is done. It won’t fit in the
middle. He asked if it is a private road, does that allow it to be a 25-foot road with no parking.
Mr. Fulton responded the subdivision ordinance has specific standards for both public and
private streets. They could do a narrower private street. If the Planning Commission were to
recommend a variance from the subdivision ordinance standards for roadway width, that would
be something staff would need to review with the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall to make
sure that would be an acceptable street.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she understood the residents’ concerns, but the property
owner had a right to redevelop the property. She said the developer had done a good job in
configuring the property. She said she wanted to move preliminary plat forward with more
discussion about the road and setbacks for the final plat.
Commissioner Kramer said he agreed the developer had the right to do what they had proposed
and it was consistent with the City vision. He said he was uncomfortable with the proximity to
the houses on Cavell. He would like to see the street moved to the west by making it narrower.
He didn’t like the idea of a fence rather than a view.
Ms. McMonigal indicated staff would look at that with the City Engineer. An additional five feet
would likely set the street 25 feet from the homes, which was the typical back yard setback.
Commissioner Shapiro indicated they should keep it a public street, but shrink it 4-5 feet from
east to west and have one side street parking to move it further from the houses.
Ms. McMonigal noted staff would try to work with the City Engineer on the road issue prior to
going to the City Council with the preliminary plat. She was not sure how quickly they would
come back with the final plat.
Commissioner Robertson commented that the east curb line of the road could move to the west.
He also wanted to add discussions regarding a fence.
Commissioner Morris asked for further discussion on the lighting.
Andrew Ford, youth member, said he felt the residents had a valid concern that the proposed
house sizes didn’t fit in with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat,
subject to conditions recommended by staff, with an amendment that a study be done on the road
moving further to the west, with further discussion on consideration of a fence and location of
lighting.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion as amended passed on a vote of
6-0-1 (Commissioner Carper abstained).
Public Works Department
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(952) 924-2555
Fax: (952) 924-2663
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 28, 2010
TO: ADAM FULTON, Planner
FROM: SCOTT BRINK, City Engineer
RE: Eldridge 1st Addition
Plan Comments
Plans for Eldridge Addition 1st Addition have been reviewed and the following comments are provided.
The plans reviewed included Sheets 1 - 4 and Sheets C1.01, C1.02, C2.01, and C3.01, all dated
September 7, 2010, prepared by Acre Land Surveying and Solution Blue, Inc.
Storm Drainage
1. The lowest elevation of any structure opening (walkout, window, etc.) must be at least 2 feet
above the 100-year flood elevation of the bio-retention storage areas, and above the emergency
overflow elevation.
2. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown clearly on the plan.
3. The bio-retention area located along the east side of the street should serve primarily as an
emergency overflow only. This retention area must be designed and constructed in a manner
that will not result in standing water, or adverse effects to neighboring properties.
4. The plan details provide for storm sewer end sections of corrugated metal pipe. End sections
shall be RCP in accordance with the same type (RCP) and size provided on the plans.
Utilities
1. Existing sanitary sewer and water services not to be utilized must be removed and capped at the
main.
1
2. The alignment of the sanitary sewer must be located under the street centerline. Water shall be
offset 10 feet.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Page 16
2
3. New water services shall be at least 1 inch in diameter.
4. Tracer wires must be placed on all sewer services from the main to the house.
5. All utility work within the right of way of Minnetonka Boulevard, including disconnects and
new service connections shall require a permit from Hennepin County. The applicant shall meet
all requirements of the permit, including but not limited to traffic control per MUTCD and
satisfactory restoration of the roadway, bicycle trail, and boulevard.
6. The City of St. Louis Park Utility Division (952-924-2558) shall be notified at least 48 hours
prior to any work involving sanitary sewer, water, or storm sewer.
Street
1. The street provided shall serve as a public street. The street and right of way configuration and
dimensions shown meet the requirements of the City’s subdivision ordinance, including
centering of the street within the right of way. Any alteration of any of these standards would
result in issues, including street and sidewalk snow removal efficiency, emergency vehicle
ingress and egress, parking restrictions, and space for private utilities.
2. Traffic signs as required, including stop, dead end, etc. shall be installed by the applicant.
3. Maintenance of the sidewalk, including snow removal shall be the responsibility of the adjacent
property owners. It is recommended that the sidewalk be 6 feet in width rather than five feet.
Other
1. An additional 15-17 feet of utility and trail easement must be provided along Minnetonka
Boulevard as directed by Hennepin County (letter from Hennepin County to City of St. Louis
Park dated September 23, 2010). In addition, sightlines and visibility at the street intersection
with Minnetonka Boulevard must be provided and maintained in accordance with the September
23 correspondence.
2. In addition to the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County, the applicant must meet the
requirements of the Minnehaha Watershed District and any other agencies as applicable.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Page 17
MINNETONKA BLVD
BOONE AVE S31S
T
S
T
W CAVELL AVE SDECATUR AVE SENSIGN AVE SAQUILA LN SAQUILA AVE SCAVELL AVE SENSIGN AVE SEldridge 1st Addition - Preliminary Plat8849 Minnetonka Boulevard
$
October 6, 2010
3X
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
250
Feet
POS
R-1
POS
R-1
R-1
R-1
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Page 18
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 19
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 20
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 21
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat Page 22
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Presale Review of General Obligation Bonds for Louisiana Court – Series 2010C and the Fire
Stations – Series 2010D.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt a Resolution Providing for the Sale of:
• $1,755,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010C and
• $13,140,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds (Build America Bonds), Series 2010D
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with refunding the Louisiana Court bonds and issuing
General Obligation Taxable Build America Bonds (BAB’s) to assist in financing the construction
of two new Fire Stations?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council is being asked to start the process for the issuance of bonds for the
PPL/Louisiana Court Project and the construction of two fire stations. It is proposed that the
bond issues for Louisiana Court and the Fire Stations be done simultaneously in order to save the
City money in issuance costs. The whole bond issuance process will occur starting from the
middle of November, with the estimated closing date the week of December 26, 2010. A
proposed schedule is attached for City Council review within the Presale Report.
Louisiana Court
For several months, the City Council has been discussing financial issues relative to the
PPL/Louisiana Court project. As a part of this, a discussion took place regarding the refinancing
of the bonds for this project. The Council concurred that the refinancing of the bonds should be
undertaken along with other steps.
As discussed previously with the City Council, the new overall refinancing plan results in
approximately a $1.9 million reduction in the debt carried by the City and paid by Louisiana
Court.
The long term strength of Louisiana Court is improved by the combination of debt reduction and
capital improvements incorporated in the refinancing plan. The debt service is dramatically
reduced and it takes advantage of currently lower interest rates.
Fire Stations
This project is nearing the end of the Design Development phase. The project budget for
constructing both stations is approximately $15.5 million. The City Council is scheduled to
receive a full update on this project at a special study session prior to the regular City Council
meeting on November 15.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
PROPOSED BOND ISSUANCE PROCESS
Louisiana Court General Obligation Refunding Bonds
This bond issue will refund the existing Louisiana Court Bonds in an amount of approximately
$1,755,000 over a term of 30 years. This figure is approximately $95,000 less than stated in the
November 8, 2010 Study Session report, as there is more cash reserve available to assist in the
refunding of the bonds. This lesser bond amount does not change the structure of the deal, but
will allow for less interest to be paid over the life of the bonds due to the smaller principal
amount. Please note that the public hearing notice we need to publish must state the maximum
principle amount of the bond issue. This amount can not be increased later but can be decreased.
In order to provide maximum flexibility with this bond issue to take into consideration
unexpected changes in the bond market or other matters (nothing anticipated at this time), the
amount included in the hearing notice will be $2 million.
By refunding the bonds, the project will see an annual debt service reduction from the current
amount of approximately $290,000 to $100,000, for a difference of approximately $190,000 per
year. This results in approximately $2.9 million over the life of the refunding bonds. This
refunding will increase the length of maturity when compared to the current bond issue and, as
such, will require a public hearing which is scheduled for December 6th. As mentioned above,
this refunding will significantly reduce Louisiana Court’s debt obligation with the goal of aiding
in long term sustainability for the complex.
Fire Station General Obligation Build America Bonds (BAB’s)
This bond issue of approximately $13,140,000 will be facilitated by utilizing Build America
Bonds (BAB’s), which is a program that is part of the Federal Government’s American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The estimated total project cost is approximately $15.5 million.
Approximately $3 million of this project cost will be paid by the Fire portion of the Police and
Fire Pension Fund with the remaining portion, or $12.5 million, coming from the net bond
proceeds. These bonds are a taxable issue, with a 35% rebate provided by the federal
government, effectively providing a projected interest savings to the City of St. Louis Park over
traditional tax exempt bonds. The BAB’s are also more attractive to investors due to the higher
interest rate they provide, thereby benefitting both the issuer and the buyer.
By issuing Build America Bonds in this amount, the City could possibly realize a present value
savings of approximately $408,000 over the life of the bonds. Annual debt service will be
approximately $910,000 per year after factoring in the 105% statutory levy requirement.
Attached is information detailing the bond issue for City Council review.
As stated in the November 8, 2010 City Council Study Session report, the BAB’s also have more
reporting requirements and require more administrative work over their life versus traditional
bonds. First, a Post Issuance Compliance Policy must be in place after the bonds are issued,
which would be brought to Council in early 2011 if Council chooses to move forward the presale
resolution of the BAB’s. Next, a tax form must be filed for each interest payment over the life of
the bond to receive the rebate. Also, there is a 50% likelihood of being audited by the IRS over
the life of the BAB’s. However, staff still feels that the additional reporting and audit possibility
is outweighed by the potential savings over the life of the bonds.
Next Steps
A presale review by City Council and approval of the authorizing resolution is proposed to occur
on November 15. On December 6, 2010, the sale of the bonds would occur for both Louisiana
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Court and the Fire Stations during the day. Also on December 6, 2010, a public hearing for
refunding the Louisiana Court bonds will occur at the regular City Council meeting. Then the
City Council will be asked to award the sale of the bonds later on that evening. The bonds would
then be scheduled to close the week of December 26, 2010. A complete schedule is attached in
the Presale Report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
By refunding the Louisiana Court bonds and issuing BAB’s for the Fire Stations construction,
the City would be realizing lower risk and savings in the long term.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution
Presale Report from Ehlers & Associates
Presale Information on $1.755M La. Ct. – 2010C
Presale Information on $12.5M Build America Bonds – 2010D
Prepared by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF
$1,755,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2010C AND
$13,140,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
(BUILD AMERICA BONDS), SERIES 2010D
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has heretofore
determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $1,755,000 General Obligation
Bonds, Series 2010C and $13,140,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds (Build America
Bonds), Series 2010D (the "Bonds"), to refund the outstanding maturities of the $4,505,000 GO
Bonds, Series 2000A and to pay for the acquisition of land and construction of two new fire
stations respectively in the City;
WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota
("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit
proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for
the sale of the Bonds.
2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 P.M. on December 6, 2010,
for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds.
3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are
hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official
statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its
completion.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
November 15, 2010
Pre-Sale Report
- $1,755,000 General Obligation Bonds,
Series 2010C (Louisiana Court)
- $13,140,000 Taxable General
Obligation Bonds (Build America
Bonds), Series 2010D (Fire Stations)
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 5
Proposed Issues:
Series 2010C: $1,755,000 General Obligation Bonds
Series 2010D: $13,140,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds (Build
America Bonds)
Purpose:
Series 2010C: The 2010C Bonds are being issued to provide funds sufficient
for a current refunding of the G.O. Bonds Series 2000A, which were issued in
the amount of $4,505,000 for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Louisiana
Court Apartments.
The 2000A Bonds are callable in the amount of $3,665,000 on February 1, 2011,
and mature on February 1 in the years 2012 through 2030. Outstanding interest
rates are 5.40% to 5.90%.
Series 2010D: The 2010D bonds are being issued to finance the
construction of two fire stations in the City.
Term/Call Feature:
Series 2010C: The 2010C Bonds are being issued for a 30-year period.
Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2012 through
2040. Bonds maturing on February 1, 2021, and thereafter will be subject to
prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2020.
Series 2010D: The 2010D Bonds are being issued for a 20-year period.
Principal on the 2010D Bonds will be due on February 1 and August 1 in the
years 2013 through 2032. Bonds maturing February 1, 2021, and thereafter will
be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2020.
Funding Sources:
Series 2010C: The 2010C Bonds are being paid from revenues generated from
Louisiana Court Apartments.
Series 2010D: To cover the required 105% coverage on the bonds, it is the
intent of the City to levy property taxes beginning with taxes payable in 2012.
The annual levy, after the 35 percent rebate, is expected to be approximately
$910,000.
Discussion Issues:
Series 2010C: Louisiana Court has always made its bond payment obligations
to the City, but has had negative cash flow issues due to higher than expected
vacancies. In order to assist the project to have a positive cash flow, various
funding sources have come together to provide dollars to “buy down” the
existing 2000A Bonds and to set aside funds for needed capital improvements.
The 2010C Bonds are being reduced by approximately $1.9 million (funds are
coming from various funding sources), which will provide annual savings of
approximately $219,000 to the project.
Since these are private activity bonds, they are limited to utilizing Bond proceeds
to pay for more than 2% of the Cost of Issuance (COI) of the par amount of the
Bonds. This 2% limit would equate to approximately $35,100. Currently COI is
estimated at $70,713, meaning that approximately $35,613 of COI would have to
come from the other various funding sources, which are available to the project.
Series 2010D: Proceeds of the 2010D Bond must be spent on capital costs. If
capital project costs are less than expected resulting in unspent BAB proceeds,
those proceeds must be expended for capital expenditures (unlike unspent
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 6
proceeds from ordinary tax-exempt issues, which can be transferred to the debt
service account and use to pay debt principal and interest of the obligation).
The 2010D Bonds are also limited in utilizing bond proceeds to pay for more
than 2% of the Cost of Issuance (COI). This 2% limit would equate to
approximately $262,800. Currently COI is estimated at $249,250, which is
below the 2% threshold.
Risk Factors:
Series 2010C: The Bonds are being paid by revenues generated from Louisiana
Court. Since the original bonds were issued in 2000, Louisiana Court has
always paid the City on time in order for the City to pay the debt service on the
bonds. In order to provide security to the City for issuing the prior bonds and
these Bonds, the City has a first mortgage on the property and will maintain a
one-year debt service reserve fund of approximately $107,000.
Series 2010D: Payment Risk – Sufficiency of Refundable Tax Credit. The
issuer’s ability to benefit from the BAB designation is contingent on the
continued payment of the refundable tax credit by the Treasury. While unlikely,
the Federal Government could in the future eliminate the 35% refundable tax
credit payment to the BAB issuer, or could reduce the amount of the subsidy.
Since the issuer would still be responsible for payment of the full interest due on
the obligation, any elimination or reduction in the subsidy amount would
increase the issuer’s cost of financing. While issuers and investors initially
expressed concern with respect to the Federal Government’s long-term
commitment to payment of the refundable tax credit, most market participants
now acknowledge that the probability that the payment will be reduced or
eliminated is no greater than the risk of a change in the tax exemption for
traditional municipal bonds However, with traditional municipal bonds the
investor accepts the risk that tax treatment could change, whereas with Direct
Payment BABs the issuer bears this risk. To mitigate the risk of the refundable
tax credit being eliminated or reduced, we recommend inclusion of an
“Extraordinary Call Feature” that allows the issuer to refund the BAB should
either of these circumstances arise. Our analysis indicates that inclusion of this
special call feature has not materially affected the interest rate an issuer will pay.
While the extraordinary call feature provides protection to the issuer should the
refundable tax credit be reduced or eliminated, the issuer would still be subject
to refunding at whatever current market rates are at that time (Interest Rate risk).
Payment Risk – Timing of Refundable Tax Credit. To receive the refundable
tax credit, the issuer must file IRS Form 8038-CP no sooner than 90 days, and
no later than 45 days, prior to the interest payment date. The Treasury has
indicated that payments to the issuer will be made within 30 days of receipt of
the filing. The refundable tax credit payment should therefore be received by the
issuer at least 15 days prior to the interest payment date. If, however, payment
of the refundable tax credit is delayed for any reason, the issuer may have
insufficient funds to make the interest payment on the due date. Prior to
designating an issue as a BAB, the issuer should consider whether or not it has
sufficient funds available from other sources that could be applied to make
scheduled interest payments on an interim basis (as part of the credit rating
process for BAB issues, Standard & Poor’s is now requesting issuers for written
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 7
verification of this). To reduce the likelihood of an inadvertent late filing, we
recommend that issuers consider engaging a paying or filing agent to prepare
and file the 8038-CP on their behalf.
Post-Issuance Compliance/Relationship to the IRS. Early analysis of the
BAB program guidance suggested that participation could change the
relationship between the issuer and the IRS with respect to post-issuance
compliance activities. In February of 2010, the IRS published Form 14127
(Direct Pay Bonds Compliance Questionnaire) that all BAB issuers will be
required to complete following issuance. The form requires issuers to detail
their policies or procedures that ensure proceeds of BABs are used in accordance
with program requirements. A copy of the IRS form is attached. While
traditional tax-exempt bond issues have always been subject to audit for review
of these same considerations, the ability to withhold future refundable tax credit
payments in the event of asserted non-compliance provides the IRS with a
substantially more direct enforcement mechanism. We strongly recommend that
prior to issuance of BABs, issuers review and make arrangements to monitor and
comply with all post-issuance responsibilities, to include the preparation of
arbitrage rebate calculations. In determining the cost benefit of BAB use versus
traditional tax-exempt bonds, the issuer should consider the potential for
increased costs of post-issuance compliance.
Refundable Tax Credit Offset. Since the refundable tax credit payments are
considered to be tax refunds under IRS rules, amounts paid may be reduced by
any amount the issuer may owe to the Federal government. This may result in
the issuer receiving a smaller payment than expected and a need to utilize other
funds to make scheduled debt service payments. Issuers that may owe the
Federal government money should consider the possibility that payments will be
offset by amounts owed.
Regulatory Uncertainty. IRS Notice 2009-26 provided guidance “intended to
facilitate prompt implementation of the Build America Bond program and to
enable state and local governments to begin issuing these bonds for authorized
purposes to promote economic recovery and job creation.” Final regulations
pertaining to the BAB program have not been published. Reliance on the
information found in Notice 2009-26 or obtained from other sources presents the
risk that final regulations may provide a different or contrary interpretation than
that used by the issuer in determining to proceed with issuance of a BAB.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 8
Bank Qualification
and Arbitrage:
Series 2010C: Because these are private activity bonds, bank qualification is
not a factor. The City will need to keep the debt service fund within IRS
parameters to avoid penalties for carrying too high of a balance during the life of
the issue.
Series 2010D: Although BABs are issued on a taxable basis, they are treated
as tax-exempt obligations for purposes of compliance with the arbitrage
provisions of Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and applicable Treasury
regulations. The “arbitrage yield” is based on the net interest cost – the full
taxable interest less the 35% federal payment. Because these Bonds are taxable,
bank qualification is not a factor.
Authority and Rating:
Series 2010C: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statues,
Chapter 475 and City Charter.
Series 2010D: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statues,
Chapter 475 and the City Charter.
Both Bonds are anticipated to be rated by Standard & Poor’s at a “AAA” level.
Debt Limit The 2010D Bonds are subject to the City’s Charter which limits the City from
incurring debt in excess of 3% of the assessor’s taxable market value for the
City. The City’s 2010 TMV is approximately $5,350,000,000. Therefore, the
total amount of outstanding debt paid 100% by a tax levy cannot exceed over
$160 million.
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 9
Proposed Debt Issuance Schedule
Attachments:
Sources and Uses of Funds
Proposed Debt Service Schedules and Savings Analysis
Ehlers Contacts:
Financial Advisors: Mark Ruff
Stacie Kvilvang
(651) 697-8505
(651-697-8506
Bond Analysts: Diana Lockard
Debbie Holmes
(651) 697-8534
(651) 697-8536
Bond Sale Coordinator: Connie Kuck (651) 697-8527
The Official Statement for this financing will be e-mailed to the Council Members at their home
address for review prior to the sale date.
Pre-Sale Review: November 15, 2010
Distribute Official Statement to S & P: November 18, 2010
Distribute Official Statement to City Council: November 24, 2010
Rating Agency Conference Week of November 22, 2010
Sale of Bonds:
December 6, 2010
TEFRA & Housing Program Public Hearing
(Series 2010C)
December 6, 2010
Council award of sale December 6, 2010
Estimated Closing Date: December 29, 2010
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 10
St Louis Park, MN
$1,755,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2010
Current Refunding of $4,505,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2000A
30 Years - 1 Year DSR
Table of Contents
Report
Sources & Uses 1
Prior Original Debt Service 2
Debt Service Schedule 3
Debt Service Comparison 5
Current Refunding Escrow 6
2010 cur Ref of Ser 00A $ | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:40 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 11
St Louis Park, MN
$1,755,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2010
Current Refunding of $4,505,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2000A
30 Years - 1 Year DSR
Sources & Uses
Dated 12/29/2010 | Delivered 12/29/2010
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $1,755,000.00
Transfers from Prior Issue DSR Funds 326,435.00
Transfers from Prior Issue BCF Funds 32,000.00
Planned Issuer Equity contribution 1,010,000.00
St Louis Park TIF Funds 500,000.00
Hennepin County 550,000.00
MHFA & MHFA PARIF 900,000.00
Family Housing Fund 100,000.00
Total Sources $5,173,435.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.750%)30,712.50
Costs of Issuance 40,000.00
Deposit to Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF)106,755.00
Deposit to Current Refunding Fund 3,664,590.38
Capital Improvements 579,272.00
Projected 2010 Deficit 191,460.00
FHF Financing Fees 66,000.00
Refund Replacement & Operations Reserve 450,000.00
Capital Improvements 42,000.00
Rounding Amount 2,645.12
Total Uses $5,173,435.00
2010 cur Ref of Ser 00A $ | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:40 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 1
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 12
St. Louis Park, MN
$4,505,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2000A
Louisiana Court Project
Prior Original Debt Service
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
02/01/2011 -----
08/01/2011 --106,771.25 106,771.25 -
02/01/2012 110,000.00 5.400%106,771.25 216,771.25 323,542.50
08/01/2012 --103,801.25 103,801.25 -
02/01/2013 115,000.00 5.500%103,801.25 218,801.25 322,602.50
08/01/2013 --100,638.75 100,638.75 -
02/01/2014 125,000.00 5.600%100,638.75 225,638.75 326,277.50
08/01/2014 --97,138.75 97,138.75 -
02/01/2015 130,000.00 5.650%97,138.75 227,138.75 324,277.50
08/01/2015 --93,466.25 93,466.25 -
02/01/2016 140,000.00 5.700%93,466.25 233,466.25 326,932.50
08/01/2016 --89,476.25 89,476.25 -
02/01/2017 145,000.00 5.750%89,476.25 234,476.25 323,952.50
08/01/2017 --85,307.50 85,307.50 -
02/01/2018 155,000.00 5.750%85,307.50 240,307.50 325,615.00
08/01/2018 --80,851.25 80,851.25 -
02/01/2019 165,000.00 5.800%80,851.25 245,851.25 326,702.50
08/01/2019 --76,066.25 76,066.25 -
02/01/2020 175,000.00 5.850%76,066.25 251,066.25 327,132.50
08/01/2020 --70,947.50 70,947.50 -
02/01/2021 185,000.00 5.900%70,947.50 255,947.50 326,895.00
08/01/2021 --65,490.00 65,490.00 -
02/01/2022 195,000.00 5.900%65,490.00 260,490.00 325,980.00
08/01/2022 --59,737.50 59,737.50 -
02/01/2023 205,000.00 5.900%59,737.50 264,737.50 324,475.00
08/01/2023 --53,690.00 53,690.00 -
02/01/2024 215,000.00 5.900%53,690.00 268,690.00 322,380.00
08/01/2024 --47,347.50 47,347.50 -
02/01/2025 230,000.00 5.900%47,347.50 277,347.50 324,695.00
08/01/2025 --40,562.50 40,562.50 -
02/01/2026 245,000.00 5.900%40,562.50 285,562.50 326,125.00
08/01/2026 --33,335.00 33,335.00 -
02/01/2027 260,000.00 5.900%33,335.00 293,335.00 326,670.00
08/01/2027 --25,665.00 25,665.00 -
02/01/2028 275,000.00 5.900%25,665.00 300,665.00 326,330.00
08/01/2028 --17,552.50 17,552.50 -
02/01/2029 290,000.00 5.900%17,552.50 307,552.50 325,105.00
08/01/2029 --8,997.50 8,997.50 -
02/01/2030 305,000.00 5.900%8,997.50 313,997.50 322,995.00
Total $3,665,000.00 -$2,513,685.00 $6,178,685.00 -
Yield Statistics
Base date for Avg. Life & Avg. Coupon Calculation 12/29/2010
Average Life 11.761 Years
Average Coupon 5.8314340%
Weighted Average Maturity (Par Basis) 11.761 Years
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 12/29/2010
Refunding Delivery Date 12/29/2010
Ser 00A $4.505M GO Bds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:40 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 2
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 13
St Louis Park, MN
$1,755,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2010
Current Refunding of $4,505,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2000A
30 Years - 1 Year DSR
Debt Service Schedule Part 1 of 2
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
12/29/2010 -----
08/01/2011 --38,246.86 38,246.86 -
02/01/2012 35,000.00 0.900%32,473.75 67,473.75 105,720.61
08/01/2012 --32,316.25 32,316.25 -
02/01/2013 40,000.00 1.100%32,316.25 72,316.25 104,632.50
08/01/2013 --32,096.25 32,096.25 -
02/01/2014 40,000.00 1.450%32,096.25 72,096.25 104,192.50
08/01/2014 --31,806.25 31,806.25 -
02/01/2015 40,000.00 1.800%31,806.25 71,806.25 103,612.50
08/01/2015 --31,446.25 31,446.25 -
02/01/2016 40,000.00 2.200%31,446.25 71,446.25 102,892.50
08/01/2016 --31,006.25 31,006.25 -
02/01/2017 40,000.00 2.500%31,006.25 71,006.25 102,012.50
08/01/2017 --30,506.25 30,506.25 -
02/01/2018 45,000.00 2.700%30,506.25 75,506.25 106,012.50
08/01/2018 --29,898.75 29,898.75 -
02/01/2019 45,000.00 2.900%29,898.75 74,898.75 104,797.50
08/01/2019 --29,246.25 29,246.25 -
02/01/2020 45,000.00 3.050%29,246.25 74,246.25 103,492.50
08/01/2020 --28,560.00 28,560.00 -
02/01/2021 45,000.00 3.200%28,560.00 73,560.00 102,120.00
08/01/2021 --27,840.00 27,840.00 -
02/01/2022 50,000.00 3.350%27,840.00 77,840.00 105,680.00
08/01/2022 --27,002.50 27,002.50 -
02/01/2023 50,000.00 3.450%27,002.50 77,002.50 104,005.00
08/01/2023 --26,140.00 26,140.00 -
02/01/2024 50,000.00 3.550%26,140.00 76,140.00 102,280.00
08/01/2024 --25,252.50 25,252.50 -
02/01/2025 55,000.00 3.650%25,252.50 80,252.50 105,505.00
08/01/2025 --24,248.75 24,248.75 -
02/01/2026 55,000.00 3.750%24,248.75 79,248.75 103,497.50
08/01/2026 --23,217.50 23,217.50 -
02/01/2027 60,000.00 3.850%23,217.50 83,217.50 106,435.00
08/01/2027 --22,062.50 22,062.50 -
02/01/2028 60,000.00 3.950%22,062.50 82,062.50 104,125.00
08/01/2028 --20,877.50 20,877.50 -
02/01/2029 65,000.00 4.050%20,877.50 85,877.50 106,755.00
08/01/2029 --19,561.25 19,561.25 -
02/01/2030 65,000.00 4.100%19,561.25 84,561.25 104,122.50
08/01/2030 --18,228.75 18,228.75 -
02/01/2031 70,000.00 4.250%18,228.75 88,228.75 106,457.50
08/01/2031 --16,741.25 16,741.25 -
02/01/2032 70,000.00 4.300%16,741.25 86,741.25 103,482.50
2010 cur Ref of Ser 00A $ | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:40 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 3
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 14
St Louis Park, MN
$1,755,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2010
Current Refunding of $4,505,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2000A
30 Years - 1 Year DSR
Debt Service Schedule Part 2 of 2
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
08/01/2032 --15,236.25 15,236.25 -
02/01/2033 75,000.00 4.350%15,236.25 90,236.25 105,472.50
08/01/2033 --13,605.00 13,605.00 -
02/01/2034 75,000.00 4.350%13,605.00 88,605.00 102,210.00
08/01/2034 --11,973.75 11,973.75 -
02/01/2035 80,000.00 4.400%11,973.75 91,973.75 103,947.50
08/01/2035 --10,213.75 10,213.75 -
02/01/2036 85,000.00 4.400%10,213.75 95,213.75 105,427.50
08/01/2036 --8,343.75 8,343.75 -
02/01/2037 90,000.00 4.450%8,343.75 98,343.75 106,687.50
08/01/2037 --6,341.25 6,341.25 -
02/01/2038 90,000.00 4.450%6,341.25 96,341.25 102,682.50
08/01/2038 --4,338.75 4,338.75 -
02/01/2039 95,000.00 4.450%4,338.75 99,338.75 103,677.50
08/01/2039 --2,225.00 2,225.00 -
02/01/2040 100,000.00 4.450%2,225.00 102,225.00 104,450.00
Total $1,755,000.00 -$1,271,385.61 $3,026,385.61 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $30,921.00
Average Life 17.619 Years
Average Coupon 4.1117222%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.2110479%
True Interest Cost (TIC)4.1978663%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 4.0498114%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)4.3966923%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 4.1117222%
Weighted Average Maturity 17.619 Years
2010 cur Ref of Ser 00A $ | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:40 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 4
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 15
St Louis Park, MN
$1,755,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2010
Current Refunding of $4,505,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2000A
30 Years - 1 Year DSR
Debt Service Comparison
Date Total P+I DSR Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings
02/01/2011 -(94.70)(94.70)-94.70
02/01/2012 105,720.61 (1,067.56)104,653.05 320,278.14 215,625.09
02/01/2013 104,632.50 (1,067.56)103,564.94 319,338.14 215,773.20
02/01/2014 104,192.50 (1,067.56)103,124.94 323,013.14 219,888.20
02/01/2015 103,612.50 (1,067.56)102,544.94 321,013.14 218,468.20
02/01/2016 102,892.50 (1,067.56)101,824.94 323,668.14 221,843.20
02/01/2017 102,012.50 (1,067.56)100,944.94 320,688.14 219,743.20
02/01/2018 106,012.50 (1,067.56)104,944.94 322,350.64 217,405.70
02/01/2019 104,797.50 (1,067.56)103,729.94 323,438.14 219,708.20
02/01/2020 103,492.50 (1,067.56)102,424.94 323,868.14 221,443.20
02/01/2021 102,120.00 (1,067.56)101,052.44 323,630.64 222,578.20
02/01/2022 105,680.00 (1,067.56)104,612.44 322,715.64 218,103.20
02/01/2023 104,005.00 (1,067.56)102,937.44 321,210.64 218,273.20
02/01/2024 102,280.00 (1,067.56)101,212.44 319,115.64 217,903.20
02/01/2025 105,505.00 (1,067.56)104,437.44 321,430.64 216,993.20
02/01/2026 103,497.50 (1,067.56)102,429.94 322,860.64 220,430.70
02/01/2027 106,435.00 (1,067.56)105,367.44 323,405.64 218,038.20
02/01/2028 104,125.00 (1,067.56)103,057.44 323,065.64 220,008.20
02/01/2029 106,755.00 (1,067.56)105,687.44 321,840.64 216,153.20
02/01/2030 104,122.50 (1,067.56)103,054.94 (6,704.36)(109,759.30)
02/01/2031 106,457.50 (1,067.56)105,389.94 -(105,389.94)
02/01/2032 103,482.50 (1,067.56)102,414.94 -(102,414.94)
02/01/2033 105,472.50 (1,067.56)104,404.94 -(104,404.94)
02/01/2034 102,210.00 (1,067.56)101,142.44 -(101,142.44)
02/01/2035 103,947.50 (1,067.56)102,879.94 -(102,879.94)
02/01/2036 105,427.50 (1,067.56)104,359.94 -(104,359.94)
02/01/2037 106,687.50 (1,067.56)105,619.94 -(105,619.94)
02/01/2038 102,682.50 (1,067.56)101,614.94 -(101,614.94)
02/01/2039 103,677.50 (1,067.56)102,609.94 -(102,609.94)
02/01/2040 104,450.00 (107,822.56)(3,372.56)-3,372.56
Total $3,026,385.61 (137,808.94)$2,888,576.67 $5,790,227.16 $2,901,650.49
PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Service Savings.....................2,433,521.63
Effects of changes in DSR investments.............(136,348.78)
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 4.397%(AIC)............2,297,172.85
Total Cash contribution...........................(1,510,000.00)
Contingency or Rounding Amount....................2,645.12
Net Present Value Benefit $789,817.97
Net PV Benefit / $4,241,744.56 PV Refunded Debt Service 18.620%
Net PV Benefit / $3,665,000 Refunded Principal...21.550%
Net PV Benefit / $1,755,000 Refunding Principal..45.004%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 12/29/2010
Refunding Delivery Date 12/29/2010
2010 cur Ref of Ser 00A $ | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:40 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 5
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 16
St Louis Park, MN
$1,755,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2010
Current Refunding of $4,505,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2000A
30 Years - 1 Year DSR
Current Refunding Escrow
Date Principal Rate Interest +Transfers Receipts Disbursements
Cash
Balance
12/29/2010 ----0.38 -0.38
02/01/2011 3,306,155.00 0.120% 369.56 358,475.06 3,664,999.62 3,665,000.00 -
Total $3,306,155.00 -$369.56 $358,475.06 $3,665,000.00 $3,665,000.00 -
Investment Parameters
Investment Model [PV, GIC, or Securities]Securities
Default investment yield target Bond Yield
Cost of Investments Purchased with Fund Transfers 358,435.00
Cash Deposit 0.38
Cost of Investments Purchased with Bond Proceeds 3,306,155.00
Total Cost of Investments $3,664,590.38
Target Cost of Investments at bond yield $3,294,761.89
Actual positive or (negative) arbitrage (11,393.49)
Yield to Receipt 0.1257843%
Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 4.0498114%
State and Local Government Series (SLGS) rates for 10/25/2010
2010 cur Ref of Ser 00A $ | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:40 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 6
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 17
St Louis Park, MN
$13,140,000 Taxable G.O. Bonds, Series 2010
Build America Bonds
$12,500,000 Net Proceeds
Table of Contents
Report
Sources & Uses 1
Debt Service Schedule 2
Net Debt Service Schedule 4
Ser 2010 BAB | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:46 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 18
St Louis Park, MN
$13,140,000 Taxable G.O. Bonds, Series 2010
Build America Bonds
$12,500,000 Net Proceeds
Sources & Uses
Dated 12/29/2010 | Delivered 12/29/2010
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $13,140,000.00
Total Sources $13,140,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.250%)164,250.00
Costs of Issuance 85,000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 386,892.57
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 12,500,000.00
Rounding Amount 3,857.43
Total Uses $13,140,000.00
Ser 2010 BAB | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:46 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 1
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 19
St Louis Park, MN
$13,140,000 Taxable G.O. Bonds, Series 2010
Build America Bonds
$12,500,000 Net Proceeds
Debt Service Schedule Part 1 of 2
Date Principal Coupon Interest LOC Total P+I Fiscal Total
12/29/2010 ------
08/01/2011 --321,904.33 (112,666.51)209,237.82 -
02/01/2012 --273,315.00 (95,660.25)177,654.75 386,892.57
08/01/2012 - - 273,315.00 (95,660.25)177,654.75 -
02/01/2013 530,000.00 1.850%273,315.00 (95,660.25)707,654.75 885,309.50
08/01/2013 - - 268,412.50 (93,944.37)174,468.13 -
02/01/2014 540,000.00 2.050%268,412.50 (93,944.37)714,468.13 888,936.26
08/01/2014 - - 262,877.50 (92,007.12)170,870.38 -
02/01/2015 545,000.00 2.350%262,877.50 (92,007.12)715,870.38 886,740.76
08/01/2015 - - 256,473.75 (89,765.81)166,707.94 -
02/01/2016 555,000.00 2.700%256,473.75 (89,765.81)721,707.94 888,415.88
08/01/2016 - - 248,981.25 (87,143.43)161,837.82 -
02/01/2017 565,000.00 2.950%248,981.25 (87,143.43)726,837.82 888,675.64
08/01/2017 - - 240,647.50 (84,226.62)156,420.88 -
02/01/2018 575,000.00 3.150%240,647.50 (84,226.62)731,420.88 887,841.76
08/01/2018 - - 231,591.25 (81,056.93)150,534.32 -
02/01/2019 585,000.00 3.400%231,591.25 (81,056.93)735,534.32 886,068.64
08/01/2019 - - 221,646.25 (77,576.18)144,070.07 -
02/01/2020 600,000.00 3.600%221,646.25 (77,576.18)744,070.07 888,140.14
08/01/2020 - - 210,846.25 (73,796.18)137,050.07 -
02/01/2021 610,000.00 3.850%210,846.25 (73,796.18)747,050.07 884,100.14
08/01/2021 - - 199,103.75 (69,686.31)129,417.44 -
02/01/2022 630,000.00 4.050%199,103.75 (69,686.31)759,417.44 888,834.88
08/01/2022 - - 186,346.25 (65,221.18)121,125.07 -
02/01/2023 645,000.00 4.250%186,346.25 (65,221.18)766,125.07 887,250.14
08/01/2023 - - 172,640.00 (60,424.00)112,216.00 -
02/01/2024 660,000.00 4.450%172,640.00 (60,424.00)772,216.00 884,432.00
08/01/2024 - - 157,955.00 (55,284.25)102,670.75 -
02/01/2025 680,000.00 4.650%157,955.00 (55,284.25)782,670.75 885,341.50
08/01/2025 - - 142,145.00 (49,750.75)92,394.25 -
02/01/2026 700,000.00 4.850%142,145.00 (49,750.75)792,394.25 884,788.50
08/01/2026 - - 125,170.00 (43,809.50)81,360.50 -
02/01/2027 725,000.00 5.000%125,170.00 (43,809.50)806,360.50 887,721.00
08/01/2027 - - 107,045.00 (37,465.75)69,579.25 -
02/01/2028 745,000.00 5.100%107,045.00 (37,465.75)814,579.25 884,158.50
08/01/2028 - - 88,047.50 (30,816.62)57,230.88 -
02/01/2029 770,000.00 5.200%88,047.50 (30,816.62)827,230.88 884,461.76
08/01/2029 - - 68,027.50 (23,809.62)44,217.88 -
02/01/2030 800,000.00 5.350%68,027.50 (23,809.62)844,217.88 888,435.76
08/01/2030 - - 46,627.50 (16,319.62)30,307.88 -
02/01/2031 825,000.00 5.500%46,627.50 (16,319.62)855,307.88 885,615.76
08/01/2031 - - 23,940.00 (8,379.00)15,561.00 -
02/01/2032 855,000.00 5.600%23,940.00 (8,379.00)870,561.00 886,122.00
Total $13,140,000.00 -$7,658,896.83 (2,680,613.74)$18,118,283.09 -
Ser 2010 BAB | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:46 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 2
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 20
St Louis Park, MN
$13,140,000 Taxable G.O. Bonds, Series 2010
Build America Bonds
$12,500,000 Net Proceeds
Debt Service Schedule Part 2 of 2
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $163,448.00
Average Life 12.439 Years
Average Coupon 4.6858309%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.7863215%
True Interest Cost (TIC)4.7333133%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.0061791%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.1966128%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 4.6858309%
Weighted Average Maturity 12.439 Years
Ser 2010 BAB | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:46 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 3
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 21
St Louis Park, MN
$13,140,000 Taxable G.O. Bonds, Series 2010
Build America Bonds
$12,500,000 Net Proceeds
Net Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest LOC Total P+I CIF Net New D/S
Fiscal
Total
12/29/2010 - -------
08/01/2011 - - 321,904.33 (112,666.51)209,237.82 (209,237.81)0.01 -
02/01/2012 - - 273,315.00 (95,660.25)177,654.75 (177,654.76)(0.01)(0.00)
08/01/2012 - - 273,315.00 (95,660.25)177,654.75 - 177,654.75 -
02/01/2013 530,000.00 1.850% 273,315.00 (95,660.25)707,654.75 - 707,654.75 885,309.50
08/01/2013 - - 268,412.50 (93,944.37)174,468.13 - 174,468.13 -
02/01/2014 540,000.00 2.050% 268,412.50 (93,944.37)714,468.13 - 714,468.13 888,936.26
08/01/2014 - - 262,877.50 (92,007.12)170,870.38 - 170,870.38 -
02/01/2015 545,000.00 2.350% 262,877.50 (92,007.12)715,870.38 - 715,870.38 886,740.76
08/01/2015 - - 256,473.75 (89,765.81)166,707.94 - 166,707.94 -
02/01/2016 555,000.00 2.700% 256,473.75 (89,765.81)721,707.94 - 721,707.94 888,415.88
08/01/2016 - - 248,981.25 (87,143.43)161,837.82 - 161,837.82 -
02/01/2017 565,000.00 2.950% 248,981.25 (87,143.43)726,837.82 - 726,837.82 888,675.64
08/01/2017 - - 240,647.50 (84,226.62)156,420.88 - 156,420.88 -
02/01/2018 575,000.00 3.150% 240,647.50 (84,226.62)731,420.88 - 731,420.88 887,841.76
08/01/2018 - - 231,591.25 (81,056.93)150,534.32 - 150,534.32 -
02/01/2019 585,000.00 3.400% 231,591.25 (81,056.93)735,534.32 - 735,534.32 886,068.64
08/01/2019 - - 221,646.25 (77,576.18)144,070.07 - 144,070.07 -
02/01/2020 600,000.00 3.600% 221,646.25 (77,576.18)744,070.07 - 744,070.07 888,140.14
08/01/2020 - - 210,846.25 (73,796.18)137,050.07 - 137,050.07 -
02/01/2021 610,000.00 3.850% 210,846.25 (73,796.18)747,050.07 - 747,050.07 884,100.14
08/01/2021 - - 199,103.75 (69,686.31)129,417.44 - 129,417.44 -
02/01/2022 630,000.00 4.050% 199,103.75 (69,686.31)759,417.44 - 759,417.44 888,834.88
08/01/2022 - - 186,346.25 (65,221.18)121,125.07 - 121,125.07 -
02/01/2023 645,000.00 4.250% 186,346.25 (65,221.18)766,125.07 - 766,125.07 887,250.14
08/01/2023 - - 172,640.00 (60,424.00)112,216.00 - 112,216.00 -
02/01/2024 660,000.00 4.450% 172,640.00 (60,424.00)772,216.00 - 772,216.00 884,432.00
08/01/2024 - - 157,955.00 (55,284.25)102,670.75 - 102,670.75 -
02/01/2025 680,000.00 4.650% 157,955.00 (55,284.25)782,670.75 - 782,670.75 885,341.50
08/01/2025 - - 142,145.00 (49,750.75)92,394.25 - 92,394.25 -
02/01/2026 700,000.00 4.850% 142,145.00 (49,750.75)792,394.25 - 792,394.25 884,788.50
08/01/2026 - - 125,170.00 (43,809.50)81,360.50 - 81,360.50 -
02/01/2027 725,000.00 5.000% 125,170.00 (43,809.50)806,360.50 - 806,360.50 887,721.00
08/01/2027 - - 107,045.00 (37,465.75)69,579.25 - 69,579.25 -
02/01/2028 745,000.00 5.100% 107,045.00 (37,465.75)814,579.25 - 814,579.25 884,158.50
08/01/2028 - - 88,047.50 (30,816.62)57,230.88 - 57,230.88 -
02/01/2029 770,000.00 5.200% 88,047.50 (30,816.62)827,230.88 - 827,230.88 884,461.76
08/01/2029 - - 68,027.50 (23,809.62)44,217.88 - 44,217.88 -
02/01/2030 800,000.00 5.350% 68,027.50 (23,809.62)844,217.88 - 844,217.88 888,435.76
08/01/2030 - - 46,627.50 (16,319.62)30,307.88 - 30,307.88 -
02/01/2031 825,000.00 5.500% 46,627.50 (16,319.62)855,307.88 - 855,307.88 885,615.76
08/01/2031 - - 23,940.00 (8,379.00)15,561.00 - 15,561.00 -
02/01/2032 855,000.00 5.600% 23,940.00 (8,379.00)870,561.00 - 870,561.00 886,122.00
Total $13,140,000.00 -$7,658,896.83 (2,680,613.74)$18,118,283.09 (386,892.57)$17,731,390.52 -
Ser 2010 BAB | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 5/2010 | 10:46 AM
Ehlers
Leaders in Public Finance Page 4
City Council Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Presale Review of G.O. Bonds for Louisiana Crt – Series 2010C & Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Page 22
Meeting Date: November 15, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Utility Rates - 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Continue the discussion regarding 2011 water, sewer, storm drainage, garbage and recycling
rates and the interest in pursuing the policy question of assuming ownership of water service
lines.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is there another water rate structure Council would like staff to evaluate?
• Are the Sewer, Storm Water and Garbage and Recycling rates recommended for 2011
acceptable to Council?
• Does the City Council want to further consider a program to assume ownership of
water service lines from the water main to the right of way line?
• Is there any other information Council would like staff to prepare regarding Utility
Rates for 2011?
BACKGROUND:
This is a continued discussion on water rates from the January 25th information from Ehler’s and
Associates and October 25th PCE (Progressive Consulting Engineers). Both studies show the
Water Utility Fund will require rate increases of about 7% annually for the foreseeable future
under the current rate structure or the use of an alternative structure for water rates to fund
capital improvements for the future.
Water rate program recommendation: Based on the discussion with Council at the October
meeting on water rates, staff used comments heard along with data from both the Ehlers and PCE
studies to develop a 10 year phase in approach for water rates. This approach uses current rate
structures in place and increases the fixed fee over 10 years to reach the PCE recommended fixed
rate. Rates in this phased approach include meeting the anticipated higher level capital needs (not
including ownership of water service lines) and the targeted cash balance of 35% by 2020. This
report is designed to help answer questions and aid discussion on setting utility rates for 2011.
What is the overall outlook?
• The city is in a good position as it is planning for the future.
• Rates need to be increased to continue to support operations and future capital needs.
• The Water Fund has an aggressive capital improvement plan and generally functions on a
pay as you go basis. (In the past rates did not increase on a consistent basis or as
aggressively as they needed to pay for capital without issuing debt.).
• This Fund covers significant expenses for mitigation related to the Reilly Tar Super Fund
site.
• The City of St. Louis Park has relatively low utility debt outstanding per capita when
compared to some other communities. This amount includes the $4 million bond issue
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
for the Municipal Service Center undertaken in 2008. Even factoring this in, the City of
St. Louis Park still is very favorable in terms of its debt.
What were the criteria or assumptions used for the PCE (Progressive Consulting Engineers) study?
The recommendations in the PCE study sets the cash balance at 35% of total annual costs by
2020 for this fund. The operation and maintenance expenses inflate at an annual rate of 3%
through 2020. It continues using DNR rate guidelines (tiers for conservation purposes). They
assume users pay for their actual respective costs (residential, commercial, and irrigation). This
is a change they recommend from our current practice.
What is the PCE recommendation regarding fixed costs in this study?
A basic finding from the study is that fixed costs to provide water to its customer are not covered
by the fixed rate currently charged to customers. (This fixed rate has stayed the same for over 8
years.) The PCE study recommends the city increase its fixed rate significantly to better cover
fixed costs as well as retain the concept of residential tiered rates (conservation rates). Separate
commercial and irrigation rates are also recommended to move to a policy position where users
pay for their respective costs.
What are considered fixed costs and commodity (usage) costs?
PCE performed the study and their recommendations were developed according to the
methodology described in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Rates Manual
using the Base-Extra Capacity method. Definition for charges:
fixed customer charge: (based on meter size) cover the customer costs such as administrative
costs, meter, billing and collection costs, etc. that are not affected by the amount of water used
by the customers
volume-based commodity charge: covers operations and maintenance costs, capital
improvement projects (CIP) and other utility expenses
What capital costs are included in all options?
• Meter reading system replacement of $3,000,000 is an upcoming need due to changes by
manufacturer and to move to automated residential reads.
• Reilly Improvements at WTP #6 - approximate cost of $2,190,000 - date uncertain.
• Hwy 100 Reconstruction Improvements - approximate cost of $3,000,000 – 2016.
What is not included?
• Service line ownership by city is not included in the rates estimated at $600,000 annually
for full citywide replacement and maintenance program.
• If Council is interested in this program, further discussion is needed with Public Works
on program design and implementation strategy.
What options are available for Council to consider?
A variety of options can be considered, as discussed at the last study session on this topic. After
review and discussion, it may not be realistic to adjust the fixed rates as recommended by PCE at
one time. Staff developed a wide range of options that were discussed at the last study session.
Based on the discussion, staff has prepared a 10 year phase in approach that is financially viable
and can be compared to the PCE study and the current rate structure.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
Current structure, fixed rate $7.71/qtr, residential tiers 1 – 3, commercial tier 1:
• Fixed rate minimal increase of $.66/quarter to $8.37 for 2011.
• Larger increases to rates for usage in order to cover capital costs e.g. 5.42% per year thru
2020 (Ehlers strategy).
• Includes Tiers 1, 2 and 3 for residential rates as currently used.
• It will be necessary to bond $12.2 million dollars during this time if the Council wishes to
implement the additional CIP projects.
PCE Study to set fixed rate at $32.10/qtr:
• Fixed rate adjusted in one year from $7.71 to $32.10/qtr (this is an increase in fixed rate
from 2010 to 2011 of $24.39/qtr.).
• Reduces the commercial and irrigation rates to better reflect their actual usage costs, and
includes Tier 1, 2, 3 residential rates as previously planned.
• Consultant assumes that rate increases and bonding will not be necessary thru 2020, if no
additional capital costs are added in the future.
• If the council decides to implement the additional CIP projects it will be necessary to
bond for up to $10.7 million dollars and raise usage rates about 1.3% annually.
Phase in approach – 10 years – (recommended approach)
• Phase in increase in fixed rate to $32.10/quarter (PCE study recommended level) over 10
years 2011 through 2020.
• Adjust rates over 10 years using current tiers, irrigation at tier 3 and current breakout of
commercial rates.
• It will be necessary to bond $12.2 million dollars during this time if the Council wishes to
implement the additional CIP projects.
• Review during year 5 (2015 for 2016 rates) and adjust if needed and confirm rates,
expenditures and 2nd half of phase in based on this plan.
Setting other utility rates for 2011
In setting rates for Sewer and Storm Water, we continue using the projections based on the
Ehlers study on Water, Sanitary, Storm Sewer and Solid Waste Utility Rate Study from January
2010. Staff worked closely with Ehlers on this study. Public Works also reviews rates in
accordance with contract requirements for solid waste and recycling. This report on other utility
rates was discussed and reviewed with Council in January and February 2010. Sewer, Storm
Drainage and Solid Waste rates for 2010 and 2011 recommendation are shown in the attachment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This discussion is intended to provide options on how the City may adjust utility rates to ensure
long-range stability in operating and maintaining our water system without requiring dramatic
rate changes in any one year.
The suggested timeframe for discussing the matter is as follows:
• November 15 Continued discussion on rates
• November 22 Continued discussion on 2011 budget including rates
• December - Adopt 2011 utility rates effective January 1, 2011
• December / January - Communication of new rates
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Attachments:
The following are attached to assist with Study Session discussion in setting 2011 rates:
A. Water Usage and Water Utility Expenses
B. St Louis Park Water Utility Rate History
C. PCE Model with 10 Year Projection on Water Utility
D. Current Model with 10 Year Projection on Water Utility
E. Phased Approach with 10 Year Projection on Water Utility - Recommended
F. Water Utility All Customers with Change in Charges Based on Phased in Approach
G. 2011 Water Usage Charges & Fixed Rates for all Customers Based on Phased in Approach
H. Sewer, Storm Drainage and Solid Waste Rates 2010 - 2011
I. Estimated Residential Bill Using Phased in Approach and All Utilities 2010 to 2011
Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Assisted by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Assisted by: Pat Sulander, Accountant
Reviewed by Mike Rardin, Public Works Director, Scott Anderson, Utilities Supt.
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
A
Water Usage
Actual
Customer Classification 2006 2007 2008 2009
Residential
Water Sold (1000 gallons) 1,268,266 1,325,336 1,210,601 1,280,651
Percent of Total Use 64 64 61 63
No. of Connections* 12,801 12,799 12,808 12,902
Average Connection Use (1000 gallons)** 99 104 95 100
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
Water Sold (1000 gallons) 653,196 652,346 692,759 625,484
Percent of Total Use 33 32 35 31
No. of Connections* 878 879 897 873
Average Connection Use (1000 gallons)** 744 742 772 716
Irrigation
Water Sold (1000 gallons) 70,348 77,786 93,454 135,230
Percent of Total Use 4 4 5 7
No. of Connections* 112 116 118 148
Average Connection Use (1000 gallons)** 628 671 792 914
Total Water Sold (1000 gallons) 1,991,810 2,055,467 1,996,814 2,041,365
Percent Change 3.20% -2.85% 2.23%
Water Utility Expenses
Actual Budget
Description 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Operation and Maintenance
Administrative Costs $ 413,353 $ 459,583 $ 453,860 $ 612,858 $ 510,190
Water Treatment Production Cost $ 980,491 $ 999,783 $1,083,129 $1,131,710 $1,177,500
Distribution System Costs $ 468,313 $ 692,116 $ 772,257 $1,053,287 $1,008,256
Total Operating Expenses $1,862,157 $2,151,482 $2,309,246 $2,797,855 $2,695,946
Debt Service (P+I) from Revenue Bonds $ - $ - $ 205,867 $ 307,528 $ 361,099
Total Debt Services $ - $ - $ 205,867 $ 307,528 $ 361,099
Transfers $ 506,965 $ 538,882 $ 533,656 $ 584,000 $ 610,652
Total Transfers $ 506,965 $ 538,882 $ 533,656 $ 584,000 $ 610,652
Reilly $ 461,787 $ 472,565 $ 455,372 $ 510,166 $ 510,166
Total Reilly $ 461,787 $ 472,565 $ 455,372 $ 510,166 $ 510,166
Capital Expenses (CIP) $ 925,060 $1,289,893 $1,421,419 $1,159,051 $1,255,000
Total Capital Expenses $ 925,060 $1,289,893 $1,421,419 $1,159,051 $1,255,000
Total Expenses $3,755,969 $4,452,822 $4,925,560 $5,358,600 $5,432,863
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
B
St. Louis Park Water Utility Rate History
3/4"
Meter WATER
Quarterly $ per
Year
Fixed
Chg
100 cubic
feet Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
2010 $7.71 $1.29 $1.62 $2.43
2009 $7.21 $1.21 $1.51 $2.27
2008 $6.80 $1.140
2007 $6.80 $1.040
2006 $6.80 $0.900
2005 $6.80 $0.717
2004 $6.80 $0.717
2003 $6.80 $0.696
2002 $6.80 $0.696
2001 $6.80 $0.696
2000 $6.67 $0.682
1999 $6.54 $0.669
1998 $6.41 $0.656
1997 $6.28 $0.643
1996 $6.10 $0.624
1995 $5.92 $0.606
1994 $5.92 $0.606
1993 $5.69 $0.583
1992 $5.58 $0.57 $0.55 $0.53
1991 $5.47 $0.56 $0.52 $0.48
1990 $5.26 $0.54 $0.50 $0.46
CPCE OptionCash Balance with Projected RatesActual Budget2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014201520162017 2018 20192020Projected Rates Based on Proposed Rate Stucture *Fixed Charge Per Quarter (5/8" or 3/4" Meter Size)5.94$ 7.71$ 32.10$ 32.53$ 32.96$ 33.40$ 33.84$ 34.29$ 34.75$ 35.21$ 35.68$ 36.15$ Residential (per unit)Block 1 - (0 - 40 Units)1.21$ 1.29$ 1.23$ 1.24$ 1.26$ 1.28$ 1.29$ 1.31$ 1.33$ 1.35$ 1.36$ 1.38$ Block 2 - (41-80 Units)1.51$ 1.62$ 1.53$ 1.55$ 1.57$ 1.60$ 1.62$ 1.64$ 1.66$ 1.68$ 1.70$ 1.73$ Block 3 - (81+ Units)2.27$ 2.43$ 2.30$ 2.33$ 2.36$ 2.39$ 2.43$ 2.46$ 2.49$ 2.52$ 2.56$ 2.59$ Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (per Unit)1.21$ 1.29$ 1.01$ 1.02$ 1.03$ 1.05$ 1.06$ 1.07$ 1.09$ 1.10$ 1.12$ 1.13$ Irrigation (per Unit)1.21$ 1.82$ 1.30$ 1.32$ 1.34$ 1.36$ 1.37$ 1.39$ 1.41$ 1.43$ 1.45$ 1.47$ MN Dept of Health Qtrly Fee (pass thru) -$ -$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ Bond Proceeds-$ Total Water-$ 1,255,000$ 1,000,000$ -$ 1,500,000$ -$ -$ 6,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Reilly-$ -$ -$ 2,190,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cash Inflows4,891,138$ 4,935,742$ 6,860,287$ 8,132,092$ 7,523,496$ 6,112,261$ 6,193,430$ 12,296,720$ 6,402,676$ 6,511,787$ 6,620,470$ 6,733,163$ Capital Expenses (CIP)1,159,051$ 1,255,000$ 278,000$ 2,807,100$ 1,370,000$ 275,100$ 400,000$ 6,550,000$ 150,000$ 240,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Total Cash Outflows5,358,600$ 5,432,863$ 4,934,645$ 7,734,150$ 6,690,815$ 5,852,768$ 6,087,005$ 12,358,087$ 6,638,746$ 6,854,155$ 6,891,986$ 6,544,672$ Net Increase (or Decrease)(467,462)$ (497,121)$ 1,925,642$ 397,943$ 832,681$ 259,494$ 106,425$ (61,367)$ (236,070)$ (342,368)$ (271,517)$ 188,491$ Cash BalanceCash Balance Jan 1350$ (496,771)$ 1,428,871$ 1,826,813$ 2,659,495$ 2,918,988$ 3,025,414$ 2,964,046$ 2,727,976$ 2,385,608$ 2,114,092$ Cash Balance Dec 31 ****350$ (496,771)$ 1,428,871$ 1,826,813$ 2,659,495$ 2,918,988$ 3,025,414$ 2,964,046$ 2,727,976$ 2,385,608$ 2,114,092$ 2,302,582$ NOTES:Targeted Cash Balance is $2,290,635 (35 % of 2020 Total Expenses)Fixed Fee per Quarter increases by 1.33% annuallyUsage Fees increase at a rate of 1.33% annuallyDescriptionProjectedSpecial Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Utility Rates - 2011 Page 7
DCurrent StructureCash Balance with Projected RatesActual Budget2009 2010 201120122013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201820192020Projected Rates Based on Proposed Rate Stucture *Fixed Charge Per Quarter (5/8" or 3/4" Meter Size)5.94$ 7.71$ 8.37$ 8.82$ 9.30$ 9.81$ 10.34$ 10.90$ 11.49$ 12.11$ 12.77$ 13.46$ Residential (per unit)Block 1 - (0 - 40 Units)1.21$ 1.29$ 1.40$ 1.48$ 1.56$ 1.64$ 1.73$ 1.83$ 1.93$ 2.03$ 2.14$ 2.26$ Block 2 - (41-80 Units)1.51$ 1.62$ 1.76$ 1.86$ 1.96$ 2.06$ 2.18$ 2.29$ 2.42$ 2.55$ 2.69$ 2.83$ Block 3 - (81+ Units)2.27$ 2.43$ 2.64$ 2.78$ 2.93$ 3.09$ 3.26$ 3.44$ 3.62$ 3.82$ 4.03$ 4.25$ Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (per Unit)1.21$ 1.29$ 1.40$ 1.48$ 1.56$ 1.64$ 1.73$ 1.83$ 1.93$ 2.03$ 2.14$ 2.26$ Irrigation (per Unit)1.21$ 1.82$ 2.64$ 2.78$ 2.93$ 3.09$ 3.26$ 3.44$ 3.62$ 3.82$ 4.03$ 4.25$ MN Dept of Health Qtrly Fee (pass thru) -$ -$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ Bond Proceeds-$ Total Water-$ 1,255,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ 6,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Reilly-$ -$ -$ 2,190,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cash Inflows4,891,138$ 4,935,742$ 7,005,759$ 7,461,819$ 7,550,530$ 5,850,404$ 6,157,273$ 12,501,686$ 6,865,067$ 7,248,832$ 7,650,375$ 8,102,989$ Capital Expenses (CIP)1,159,051$ 1,255,000$ 278,000$ 2,807,100$ 1,370,000$ 275,100$ 400,000$ 6,550,000$ 150,000$ 240,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Total Cash Outflows5,358,600$ 5,432,863$ 4,934,645$ 7,830,591$ 6,997,256$ 6,206,936$ 6,441,173$ 12,712,255$ 6,992,914$ 7,208,323$ 7,246,154$ 6,898,840$ Net Increase (or Decrease)(467,462)$ (497,121)$ 2,071,114$ (368,772)$ 553,274$ (356,532)$ (283,900)$ (210,569)$ (127,846)$ 40,510$ 404,221$ 1,204,149$ Cash BalanceCash Balance Jan 1350$ (496,771)$ 1,574,343$ 1,205,570$ 1,758,844$ 1,402,313$ 1,118,413$ 907,844$ 779,998$ 820,507$ 1,224,728$ Cash Balance Dec 31 ****350$ (496,771)$ 1,574,343$ 1,205,570$ 1,758,844$ 1,402,313$ 1,118,413$ 907,844$ 779,998$ 820,507$ 1,224,728$ 2,428,877$ NOTES:Targeted Cash Balance is $2,414,594 (35 % of 2020 Total Expenses)Fixed Fee per Quarter increases by 5.42% annuallyUsage Fees increase at a rate of 5.42% annuallyDescriptionProjectedSpecial Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Utility Rates - 2011 Page 8
EPhased in OptionCash Balance with Projected RatesActual Budget2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Projected Rates Based on Current Rate Stucture *Fixed Charge Per Quarter (5/8" or 3/4" Meter Size) 5.94$ 7.71$ 10.15$ 12.59$ 15.03$ 17.47$ 19.91$ 22.35$ 24.79$ 27.23$ 29.67$ 32.11$ Residential (per unit)Block 1 - (0 - 40 Units)1.21$ 1.29$ 1.33$ 1.38$ 1.42$ 1.47$ 1.52$ 1.57$ 1.62$ 1.67$ 1.73$ 1.78$ Block 2 - (41-80 Units)1.51$ 1.62$ 1.67$ 1.73$ 1.79$ 1.84$ 1.91$ 1.97$ 2.03$ 2.10$ 2.17$ 2.24$ Block 3 - (81+ Units)2.27$ 2.43$ 2.51$ 2.59$ 2.68$ 2.77$ 2.86$ 2.95$ 3.05$ 3.15$ 3.25$ 3.36$ Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (per Unit)1.21$ 1.29$ 1.33$ 1.38$ 1.42$ 1.47$ 1.52$ 1.57$ 1.62$ 1.67$ 1.73$ 1.78$ Irrigation (per Unit)1.21$ 1.82$ 2.51$ 2.59$ 2.68$ 2.77$ 2.86$ 2.95$ 3.05$ 3.15$ 3.25$ 3.36$ MN Dept of Health Qtrly Fee (pass thru) -$ -$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ Bond ProceedsWater1,255,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 6,000,000$ Reilly2,190,000$ Total Cash Inflows4,891,138$ 4,935,742$ 6,929,203$ 7,433,911$ 7,561,542$ 5,889,988$ 6,214,425$ 12,564,708$ 6,921,526$ 7,285,517$ 7,653,250$ 7,999,969$ Capital Expenses (CIP)1,159,051$ 1,255,000$ 278,000$ 2,807,100$ 1,370,000$ 275,100$ 400,000$ 6,550,000$ 150,000$ 240,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Total Cash Outflows5,358,600$ 5,432,863$ 4,934,645$ 7,830,591$ 6,997,256$ 6,206,936$ 6,441,173$ 12,712,255$ 6,992,914$ 7,208,323$ 7,246,154$ 6,898,840$ Net Increase (or Decrease) in Cash(467,462)$ (497,121)$ 1,994,558$ (396,680)$ 564,286$ (316,948)$ (226,749)$ (147,548)$ (71,388)$ 77,194$ 407,096$ 1,101,129$ Cash BalanceCash Balance Jan 1350$ (496,771)$ 1,497,786$ 1,101,107$ 1,665,393$ 1,348,445$ 1,121,697$ 974,149$ 902,761$ 979,955$ 1,387,051$ Cash Balance Dec 31 ***350$ (496,771)$ 1,497,786$ 1,101,107$ 1,665,393$ 1,348,445$ 1,121,697$ 974,149$ 902,761$ 979,955$ 1,387,051$ 2,488,179$ NOTES:Targeted Cash Balance is $2,414,594 (35 % of 2020 Total Expenses)Fixed Fee per Quarter increases by $2.44 per yearUsage Fees increase at a rate of 3.3% annuallyDescriptionProjectedSpecial Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Utility Rates - 2011 Page 9
F City of St. Louis Park
Water Utility
Water Rate Study
Typical Quarterly Billing Comparison With Existing and Proposed Rates
Existing (2010) Proposed (2011)
Residential
Average use of 40 Units per Quarter (3/4 Inch Meter Size)
Existing Rates (2010)
Rates Per Unit 1.29$
Fixed Charges Per Quarter 7.71$
Commodity Charges Per Quarter 51.60$
Total Per Quarter 59.31$
Proposed Rates (2011)
Commodity Rates Per Unit (Block 1)1.33$
Fixed Charges Per Quarter 11.74$
Commodity Charges Per Quarter 53.20$
Total Per Quarter 64.94$
Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter 5.63$
Commercial/Industrial Large User
Existing Rates (2010)
Rates Per Unit 1.29$
Fixed Charges Per Quarter (Assume 2 Inch Meter Size)29.55$
Proposed Rates (2011)
Rates Per Unit 1.33$
Fixed Charges Per Quarter (Assume 2 Inch Meter Size)31.03$
Customer A - Average Use 56,347 Units Per Quarter
Charges Per Quarter with Existing Rate 72,717$
Charges Per Quarter with Proposed Rates 74,973$
Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter Customer A 2,255$
Customer B - Average Use 15,867 Units Per Quarter
Charges Per Quarter with Existing Rate 20,498$
Charges Per Quarter with Proposed Rates 21,134$
Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter Customer B 636$
Customer C - Average Use 8,187 Units Per Quarter
Charges Per Quarter with Existing Rate 10,591$
Charges Per Quarter with Proposed Rates 10,920$
Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter Customer C 329$
Customer D - Average Use 4,534 Units Per Quarter
Charges Per Quarter with Existing Rate 5,878$
Charges Per Quarter with Proposed Rates 6,061$
Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter Customer D 183$
Description
Billing Charges
Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc
PCE Project No. 10014
11/09/2010
Water Rate Study
City of St. Louis Park, MN
Utility Rates- Phased In Option.xls
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
Page 10
G
Usage Charge
Residential Units 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Tier 1 0 - 40 1.29$ 1.33$ 0.04$
Tier 2 41 - 80 1.62$ 1.67$ 0.05$
Tier 3 81 - above 2.43$ 2.51$ 0.08$
Commercial All 1.29$ 1.33$ 0.04$
Irrigation All 1.82$ 2.51$ 0.69$
Fixed Charge
Meter
Size 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
5/8"6.36$ 10.15$ 3.79$
3/4"7.71$ 10.15$ 2.44$
1.0"11.30$ 14.21$ 2.91$
1.5"19.08$ 18.27$ (0.81)$
2.0"29.53$ 29.44$ (0.10)$
3.0"55.61$ 111.65$ 56.04$
4.0"90.03$ 142.10$ 52.07$
6.0"176.43$ 213.15$ 36.72$
2.0" Compound 29.53$ 29.44$ (0.10)$
3.0" Compound 55.61$ 111.65$ 56.04$
Meter
Size 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
5/8"1.36$ 2.12$ 0.76$
3/4"1.53$ 2.57$ 1.04$
1.0"1.98$ 3.77$ 1.79$
1.5"2.91$ 6.36$ 3.45$
2.0"4.23$ 9.84$ 5.62$
3.0"7.43$ 18.54$ 11.10$
4.0"12.53$ 30.01$ 17.48$
6.0"24.22$ 58.81$ 34.59$
Water Rates (1 unit equals 750 gallons)
Water Rates shown are from the Phase In Option
Residential (Quarterly)
Commercial (Monthly)
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
Page 11
H
Residential 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Base Charge 11.40$ 12.54$ 1.14$ Quarterly
Usage 2.21$ 2.43$ 0.22$ Quarterly
Apartments 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Base Charge 11.40$ 12.54$ 1.14$ Quarterly
Usage 2.21$ 2.43$ 0.22$ Quarterly
Commercial 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Base Charge 11.40$ 12.54$ 1.14$ Quarterly
Usage 2.21$ 2.43$ 0.22$ Quarterly
Base Charge 3.80$ 4.18$ 0.38$ Monthly
Usage 2.21$ 2.43$ 0.22$ Monthly
Residential 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Quarterly 14.50$ 15.00$ 0.50$
Commercial 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
Monthly 24.15$ 24.87$ 0.72$
Quarterly 72.50$ 74.68$ 2.18$
Residential 2010 Proposed 2011 Dollar Change
30-gallon 45.31$ 47.13$ 1.81$ Quarterly
60-gallon 57.63$ 59.94$ 2.31$ Quarterly
90-gallon 69.94$ 72.74$ 2.80$ Quarterly
120-gallon 82.27$ 85.56$ 3.29$ Quarterly
150-gallon 94.59$ 98.37$ 3.78$ Quarterly
180-gallon 106.90$ 111.18$ 4.28$ Quarterly
210-gallon 119.23$ 123.99$ 4.77$ Quarterly
240-gallon 131.53$ 136.80$ 5.26$ Quarterly
270-gallon 143.86$ 149.61$ 5.75$ Quarterly
360-gallon 180.82$ 188.05$ 7.23$ Quarterly
450-gallon 217.77$ 226.48$ 8.71$ Quarterly
540-gallon 254.72$ 264.90$ 10.19$ Quarterly
Solid Waste Rates (including tax)
Sewer Rates
Storm Drainage Rates
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
Page 12
I Estimated Quarterly Utility Bill
Family size 4
Units per quarter 30
Solid Waste 60-gallon
Meter size 3/4 inch
Proposed
Service Actual Phased in Option
Water 2010 2011
Service charge 7.71$ 10.15$
State testing fee -$ 1.59$
Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.29$ 1.33$
Consumption 38.70$ 39.90$
Sewer
Service charge 11.40$ 12.54$
Consumption 66.30$ 72.90$
Storm Drainage 14.50$ 15.00$
Garbage (includes tax)57.63$ 59.94$
Total bill (Quarterly)196.24$ 212.02$
Increase (dollars)15.78$
Increase (percent)8.04%
Special Study Session Meeting of November 15, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Utility Rates - 2011
Page 13